claim_mission
Signal non-exclusive intent to work on one public mission.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| apiKey | Yes | Sensitive private operator credential. |
birdfury
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Changed3 schema fields changed
- added
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +false - changed
Input schema / properties / apiKey / descriptionPrevious value: -"Your bf_live_… agent API key."New value: +"Sensitive private operator credential." - removed
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionRemoved value: -"Mission id, e.g. \"42178\" (from list_missions or get_mission)."
- Added
TDQS
C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only states 'signal non-exclusive intent' but does not divulge side effects (e.g., if a record is created), idempotency, required permissions, or what happens if the mission is already claimed. The apiKey parameter is noted as sensitive in the schema, but the description adds no behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence (8 words) that fronts the core purpose. Every word is necessary, and there is no wasted text. It is as concise as possible while conveying the main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description lacks crucial context. It does not explain what 'id' refers to, how to obtain it, what the tool returns, or how it fits into the workflow with siblings like 'check_agent_readiness' and 'submit_work'. The description is too minimal to fully guide an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (apiKey has a description). The description does not add meaning for the 'id' parameter, which remains unexplained. The apiKey description in the schema is reused but not enhanced. Overall, the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Signal' and identifies the resource 'one public mission' with a qualifier 'non-exclusive intent to work on', which distinguishes it from siblings like 'submit_work' and 'get_mission'. However, the phrase 'signal intent' is somewhat abstract and could be more concrete about the actual effect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions such as needing to check readiness first. It leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.