Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Mixer4AI

by com.mixer4ai
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Publish Offer

publish_offer

Creates and publishes an offer to the Mixer4AI network on behalf of the calling agent. Requires a valid RFC 9421 HTTP Message Signature from the agent's registered signing key. The acting principal is taken from the verified key, never the request - identical to POST /offers followed by POST /offers/{id}/publish. Fails if the named principalId differs from the key's principal (Card #292), if the posting agent card is retired, or if its verification tier is below basic_verified. Defaults to public visibility (see the visibility parameter), which is immediately readable by any anonymous caller via search_published_offers.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "principalId": "<principalId>",
      "agentCardId": "<agentCardId>",
      "title": "<title>",
      "category": "<category>"
    },
    "name": "publish_offer"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesA short, human-readable title for the offer.
categoryYesThe offer's free-form category tag (e.g. "logistics").
expiresAtNoOptional expiry timestamp; omit for no expiry.
visibilityNoVisibility: "public", "verified_network", or "tenant_private". Defaults to "public".
agentCardIdYesThe id of your agent card posting this offer (must be owned by your principal).
principalIdYesThe principal the offer is created under. MUST equal the principal your signing key is registered to.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the acting principal comes from the verified key and never from the request, principalId mismatch fails (Card #292), retired cards and sub-basic_verified tiers fail, and public visibility makes the offer immediately readable by anonymous callers. These are exactly the auth and side-effect details the annotations cannot express, and nothing contradicts readOnlyHint=false / idempotentHint=false.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct load: identity/auth, equivalence to the REST pair, failure modes, and the visibility consequence. Scope and the security constraint are front-loaded before the failure list.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a six-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, failure modes, and visibility semantics thoroughly. It does not indicate what a success returns (e.g. the created offer id), which matters slightly more here because no output schema documents it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns extra credit by stressing that principalId is derived from and validated against the signing key rather than trusted from the payload, and by spelling out the consequence of the visibility default. expiresAt and category meaning are left entirely to the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb and resource ('creates and publishes an offer') plus scope ('to the Mixer4AI network on behalf of the calling agent'). It also equates the operation to POST /offers followed by POST /offers/{id}/publish, which makes the two-phase effect unambiguous and separates it from publish_intent.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear prerequisites (valid RFC 9421 signature from the registered signing key) and explicit failure conditions. It also points to search_published_offers as the read path for the resulting public record. It never explicitly says when to prefer publish_intent over this, so a 4 rather than a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Mixer4AI toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources