List your journal slots (slug, size, last-updated).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vigil_key | No | Legacy credential argument. Prefer the HTTP Authorization: Bearer header; omit this argument when that header authenticates the request. |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It accurately implies a read-only listing operation and scopes results to 'your' journal slots, but it doesn't detail authentication expectations, pagination, ordering, or any side effects. The behavior is simple enough that this is acceptable but not fully rich.
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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action, resource, and output fields. It contains no fluff or redundant phrasing.
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's low complexity, one optional parameter, and no output schema, the description provides the essential usage and return shape information. It could mention auth or ordering, but the input schema already covers the credential behavior, making the tool reasonably complete.
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 100% for the single optional vigil_key parameter, and the schema itself provides detailed guidance about using the Authorization header instead. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, which is fine because the schema already covers it.
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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource, 'journal slots', and enumerates the returned fields: slug, size, last-updated. This makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like vigil_journal_put and vigil_journal_delete.
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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: when an agent needs to list journal slots rather than fetch, create, or delete a specific slot. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like vigil_journal_get, but the usage context is clear from the objective phrasing.
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.
The tools are organized into clear domains—receipts/notarization, leases, journals, watchdogs, and account management—and each tool has a distinct resource or action. Minor confusion is possible between vigil_anchor and vigil_anchors, or between the various verification tools, but the descriptions generally make the boundaries clear.
All tools share the vigil_ prefix and use snake_case, but the verb/noun ordering is inconsistent: vigil_get_receipt and vigil_delete_watchdog use verb-first, while vigil_journal_get and vigil_journal_delete use resource-first. Several tools are also pure nouns (vigil_chain, vigil_usage, vigil_lease_status), making the overall pattern mixed but still readable.
At 26 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold and feels heavy for a single MCP server, even though the tools cluster into several subsystems. Some status, info, and lease-listing tools could plausibly be consolidated without losing much capability.
The core lifecycle coverage is strong: receipts can be created, read, verified, and audited via the chain; leases have grant/renew/revoke/status/verify; journals have full CRUD; watchdogs have set/delete/status/heartbeat. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct way to update a watchdog without deleting and recreating it, but these are workable.