Skip to main content
Glama

concordance

by com.narrowhighway

group_contribute

Add a verse/note/question to a group's shared study — attributed to your handle, optionally signed. Verbatim; a member's own words, not engine-verified.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
kindNo
refsNo
textYes
handleNo
topicsNo
subject_idNo
attestationNooptional: sign sha256(text) with your own key (signing.sign_seal) and pass it here — a handle alone is only a claim, a signature makes your authorship checkable. Never send a private key.

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses attribution to the user's handle, optional signing, and that content is verbatim and not engine-verified. However, it does not describe permissions, side effects, or return behavior.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler, front-loading the core action ('Add a verse/note/question'). Every clause adds meaning.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is too sparse. It lacks required parameter clarity, usage context, and any sense of return value or side effects.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 13%, and the description must compensate. It hints at kind (verse/note/question), handle, and attestation, but does not explain the required id and text parameters or refs/topics/subject_id, leaving much ambiguity.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool adds a verse/note/question to a group's shared study, providing a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like study_create or curate, so it isn't a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The action of adding to a group's shared study implies when to use it, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned. There is no guidance on prerequisites like group membership or relation to study_create.

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

All concordance toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are near-duplicates: read_passage and resolve both fetch WEB text for a reference; word_study already includes every occurrence that word_occurrences returns; coach_next and coach_recommend both answer 'what's next.' Search/locate/cards_browse also overlap as discovery entry points, making tool selection ambiguous despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names follow an object_verb snake_case pattern (cards_browse, study_create, seal_fetch), but there are many bare verbs/nouns (ask, audit, resolve, verify, canon, harmony) and inconsistent singular/plural pairs (card_get vs cards_browse, group_create vs groups_list, want_open vs wants_list). No camelCase, but the convention is not uniform.

Tool Count1/5

86 tools is an extreme count for any single MCP server, far beyond the 3-15 well-scoped range; even a broad platform would be hard for an agent to navigate. Many tools belong to unrelated subdomains (coach, steward, mesh, calendar), making the surface unwieldy.

Completeness2/5

The want/offer flow has no accept/close tool, so an agent can open a want and offer a source but never see it resolved. Group and calendar coverage are one-directional (create/join only; no leave/delete/list/update), and there is no badge listing or way to update a study group. Core reading/verification/shelf flows are solid, but lifecycle gaps remain.

Resources