bounty_subscribeRegister a public webhook URL, an email address, or both for a callback when the bounty is accepted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | Delivery email address. | ||
| bounty_id | Yes | Bounty id. | |
| webhook_url | No | Public HTTP(S) callback URL. |
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 should disclose lifecycle behavior. It does not clarify whether the subscription is persistent or one-time, whether it replaces existing subscriptions, or any prerequisites like agent registration. This is a significant gap.
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?
Single sentence, no redundancy, front-loaded with the action.
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 tool of this complexity, the description is minimal but sufficient to understand the basic operation. However, missing behavioral details like subscription persistence and prerequisites make it incomplete for confident use.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema handles parameter descriptions. The description adds the 'or both' clarification, which is helpful but not substantial beyond the schema's anyOf.
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 'Register' and clearly identifies the target (webhook/email for bounty acceptance). It distinguishes from sibling tools like work_alert_subscribe by specifying the event (bounty accepted).
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?
It provides clear context (when the bounty is accepted) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Given the sibling list includes work_alert_subscribe, some comparative guidance would be helpful, but the context is sufficient.
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.
Several tools share the same domain (bounties, capabilities, sources) and a few pairs could be confused, such as bounty_subscribe vs work_alert_subscribe or needs_intake vs request_source. The detailed descriptions help, but the boundaries are not immediately obvious from names alone.
Naming conventions are mixed: some tools use verb-first (get_rows, list_sources), others noun-first (bounties_list, bounty_get), and some are noun phrases (bounty_counter, needs_intake). This inconsistency reduces predictability.
With 26 tools, the set crosses the 25+ threshold for 'too many.' While the broad domain justifies some size, several niche tools (e.g., bounty_self_gate, capability_price_notices) could be consolidated or are overly granular.
Core workflows exist for bounties, capabilities, and sources, but there are notable gaps: no explicit accept/payout tool for bounties, no delete/disable for capabilities, and no way to list individual submissions. Some lifecycle operations are missing.