accept_friend_requestAccept an incoming friend request from the given user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userId | Yes | Argo user ID of the counterparty. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| senderId | Yes | ||
| createdAt | No | ||
| updatedAt | No | ||
| receiverId | Yes |
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 already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, signaling a non-destructive but state-changing operation. The description does not add extra behavioral context such as whether acceptance is reversible or triggers notifications. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also adds little beyond the obvious effect.
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?
A single, clear sentence that front-loads the key verb and resource. No redundant phrases or filler—every word 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 simple one-parameter action with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It could mention return behavior or side effects, but the structured fields already cover the output, and the action itself is straightforward. Loses one point because a note about the necessity of an existing incoming request would improve contextual completeness.
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% (userId described as 'Argo user ID of the counterparty'). The description's 'given user' aligns with this but adds no new semantic detail. Since the schema adequately explains the parameter, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Accept' with a clear resource 'incoming friend request', which precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_friend_request, cancel_friend_request, and reject_friend_request. The phrase 'from the given user' further clarifies the action is on a specific incoming request.
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 phrase 'incoming friend request' implies the tool is for accepting requests you received, contrasting with sending or canceling your own. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like reject_friend_request, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., the request must exist).
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose. The mnemon tools are separated by type (NPC, Location, Quest, etc.), and other domains like guild, forum, and friend management are also well-segmented. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case. Some minor deviations: 'describe_mnemon_types' instead of 'list_mnemon_types', and 'invite_user_by_email' has a slightly different structure. Overall quite consistent.
With 63 tools, the server is quite heavy. While each tool serves a specific purpose for campaign management, the sheer number may be overwhelming. It is borderline but still reasonable given the broad domain coverage.
The tool set covers CRUD for most resources (campaigns, sessions, mnemon types, guilds, friends, forum). Notable gaps: no delete_campaign or delete_session, and update_campaign is limited. However, the core workflows are well-covered.