Extend a lease with a fresh signed token and new expiry. Renewing is how a healthy agent keeps acting; stop renewing (or revoke) and it lapses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ttl_s | Yes | ||
| lease_id | Yes | ||
| 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 full burden. It discloses the core effect (fresh signed token, new expiry) and the lapse-on-stop behavior. However, it omits important behavioral details such as authentication expectations, idempotency, failure modes, or what becomes invalidated.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect. The lifecycle analogy adds context without bloat. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimally described parameters, the description is too thin. An agent still lacks ttl_s semantics, authentication guidance, expected response, and how renewal interacts with revocation.
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 33%, and the only documented parameter is vigil_key. The description vaguely maps 'new expiry' to ttl_s and 'a lease' to lease_id, but it does not explain ttl_s units, allowed ranges, or lease_id format, leaving the agent to guess.
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 a specific verb ('Extend') and resource ('a lease') and clarifies the mechanism: a fresh signed token and new expiry. It clearly distinguishes renewal from granting or revoking, though it does not explicitly name a sibling tool.
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 second sentence gives lifecycle context: renewing is how a healthy agent keeps acting, and stopping renewal or revoking lapses the lease. This implies when to use the tool but does not explicitly compare it to vigil_grant_lease or vigil_revoke_lease.
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.