mesh_subscribeWire a webhook to your node's LIVE mesh events: call.settled when someone rents your capability, vibe.followed when you gain a follower, capability.listed when a node you follow ships something new. HMAC-signed deliveries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | subscription id (for delete) | |
| url | No | public https endpoint to POST events to | |
| action | Yes | ||
| events | No | event types to receive (omit = all) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds some behavioral context (HMAC-signed deliveries, LIVE events) and gives example event types. However, it does not mention that the tool supports delete operations (destructiveHint) or that subscriptions are HTTP-based. It doesn't disclose any potential side effects beyond what annotations already state. It also doesn't mention that event types beyond the examples exist, though schema covers them.
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?
Two sentences, directly clear, uses a list for readability, no fluff. Well-structured and front-loaded.
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 schema covers parameters and annotations indicate destructive capabilities, the description adds enough context about event types and HMAC security. It could mention the action options or lifecycle, but overall it's adequate for a medium-complexity tool.
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 75%, so most params are described in schema. The description adds event examples but doesn't explain the action or id/url parameters further. It provides minimal added 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 clearly states the tool's function: wiring a webhook to your node's LIVE mesh events, with concrete examples (call.settled, vibe.followed, capability.listed). It distinguishes from sibling mesh_* tools by focusing on webhook subscriptions, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 description implies usage for receiving real-time event notifications but does not explicitly say when to use it over other mesh tools (e.g., polling or direct query). It also does not explain the action parameter (create/list/delete) or when to use each action. The HMAC mention hints at security but no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool.
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 have overlapping purposes: search and mesh_discover both enumerate the catalog, while biz-analyze, task-analysis, and task-orchestrate all produce structured plans from a described situation. This will cause agents to misselect between them despite otherwise distinct tools.
Naming is inconsistent: mesh_* tools use snake_case, most capability tools use hyphenated lowercase names, and a few (fetch, search) are bare verbs. There is no single verb-object or noun-verb pattern that holds across the set.
28 tools is on the heavy side, but the marketplace concept justifies including many callable capabilities. However, the mix of platform tools and unrelated utilities makes the surface feel cluttered and hard to navigate.
The core marketplace lifecycle is well covered: signup, discover, fetch, publish, delegate, refer, follow, subscribe, and balance. Minor gaps exist (no unpublish or edit for listings), but most agent workflows can proceed without dead ends.