Licium

supplier pot

supplier_pot

List or create supplier pots with a target and machine acceptance checks. list: GET /v1/supplier-pots. create: POST /v1/supplier-pots; body: title, description, category, target_usd, call_price_credits, deadline_at, machine_contract.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "supplier_pot"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No
`body`	No	REST JSON body for the chosen action. See its documented fields in the action description and OpenAPI.
`token`	No
`action`	Yes
`handle`	No
`agent_key`	No
`wanted_id`	No
`transfer_id`	No
`idempotency_key`	No
`delete_credential`	No
`payment_signature`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 28, 2026

addedInput schema / description

Added value: +"Required by action: list: nothing more; create: agent_key and body."

removedInput schema / oneOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "properties": {
-      "action": {
-        "const": "list"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "action"
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "properties": {
-      "action": {
-        "const": "create"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "action",
-      "agent_key",
-      "body"
-    ]
-  }
-]

AddedOct 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare non-readonly, open-world, non-idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful endpoint context and create-body fields, but omits auth requirements, side effects, idempotency behavior despite the idempotency_key parameter, and response characteristics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Compact and front-loaded with the two actions, their HTTP endpoints, and create-body fields. The dense colon-separated style is efficient, though slightly mechanical rather than pedagogically structured.

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?

This is a dual-action tool with 11 parameters, low schema coverage, a nested body object, and no output schema. The description covers create body fields and endpoints, but is not complete enough about top-level parameter semantics, usage context, or authentication expectations.

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 description coverage is only 9% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate heavily. It names create body fields and the list/create action mapping, but leaves most top-level parameters (token, handle, agent_key, wanted_id, transfer_id, idempotency_key, etc.) unexplained.

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?

States specific verbs (list/create) and resource (supplier pots), plus the target and machine acceptance checks context. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling pot or contract tools, so sibling differentiation is incomplete despite a clear overall purpose.

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?

Maps list to GET and create to POST, but gives no guidance on when an agent should choose one action over the other, what prerequisites exist, or when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as bounty_pot_contract or procurement_contract_run.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Licium tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?