fm_repositionUpdate your view on an open call as the signal evolves. Same qualitative rule as opening one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lean | No | ||
| rationale | No | ||
| tenant_slug | Yes | ||
| access_token | Yes | ||
| position_key | Yes | From fm_book_status or fm_open_position. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, confirming this is a write operation, but the description adds little beyond that. It mentions 'Same qualitative rule as opening one' but doesn't explain that rule or any behavioral traits like side effects, authorization needs, or what exactly changes. For a mutation tool with minimal annotations, more transparency is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two sentences) and thus concise, but it sacrifices clarity and completeness. It is not front-loaded with the most critical information (e.g., what parameters are needed, what the result is). It earns a middle score because it is brief but not optimally structured for utility.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., must have an open call), the meaning of 'reposition', the role of each parameter, or the expected outcome. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool based on the provided information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20% (only position_key gets a description). The tool description does not mention any parameters or their semantics. With low schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it adds zero value for parameter understanding. This leaves the agent blind to the meaning of lean, rationale, and other fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Update your view on an open call' which clearly indicates the action is modifying an existing call position. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fm_open_position (open) and fm_close_position (close) by specifying 'reposition'. However, the phrase 'as the signal evolves' is somewhat vague and doesn't precisely define what 'update your view' entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fm_open_position or fm_close_position. The only contextual clue is 'Same qualitative rule as opening one,' which is too vague to help an agent decide. No when/not conditions or references to sibling tools are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is overlap between `get_my_private_feed`, `subscribe_topic`, and `list_subscriptions`—all return or manage feed URLs, which could confuse an agent. Otherwise, categories like publisher, fund manager, and search tools are clearly separated.
All tools use consistent snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., `get_article`, `search_articles`, `publisher_upload_audio`). Exceptions like `digest` are single-word verbs but still fit the pattern. No mixed conventions are present.
With 37 tools, the server exceeds the 25-tool threshold considered 'too many' by the rubric. While the broad scope (news, podcasting, publishing, fund management, embedding) justifies a large surface, the count still adds cognitive load and would benefit from splitting into separate servers.
The tool set covers the major domains: search, retrieval, subscriptions, publishing, fund manager operations, and embedder network. Minor gaps exist, such as the absence of an unsubscribe or delete-episode tool, but the core workflows are well-supported and agents can accomplish most tasks.