reject_friend_requestReject 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?
The description restates the action implied by the tool name and adds no behavioral details beyond what the annotations already declare (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). It does not disclose side effects such as whether the request is permanently removed or if any error occurs when the request does not exist.
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 with no filler. It communicates the action, the object, and the target in a compact form.
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 simple one-parameter interface, the presence of an output schema, and clear annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to use the tool. It might be improved by noting whether rejecting a non-existent request is an error, but the existing structured data covers the essential context.
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?
The input schema already fully describes the single parameter userId with its meaning ('Argo user ID of the counterparty'). The tool description only references 'the given user' without adding any further parameter-specific detail, so it adds no value beyond the schema.
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 ('Reject') and identifies the resource ('incoming friend request') and actor ('from the given user'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like accept_friend_request and cancel_friend_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 word 'incoming' provides context that this is for requests received from others, which distinguishes it from cancel_friend_request (for outgoing requests). However, it does not explicitly clarify when not to use it or mention alternatives by name, so it falls short of a 5.
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.