Append one settlement leaf (x402 | stripe_mpp | agentcore) under your task_id. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| leaf | Yes | ||
| task_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 carries the burden. It discloses that exactly one leaf is appended, restricts leaf types, and includes 'Free' as a behavioral/cost note. However, it does not mention idempotency, failure modes, permissions, or whether appending has any side effects beyond adding the leaf.
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 short sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, followed by the leaf-type constraint and the cost note. Every word contributes meaningful information.
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?
The output schema presumably covers return values, so that is not needed in the description. Still, the leaf object structure and the relationship to binder_seal/binder_verify are only implicit, and the 'Free' note is ambiguous. The description gives enough to attempt a call but not enough for confident, correct construction of the nested leaf object.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives task_id meaning as the owning context and constrains leaf to a settlement leaf of type x402, stripe_mpp, or agentcore. However, it does not explain how to represent those types inside the leaf object or what other fields the leaf should contain, leaving a notable gap for a nested arbitrary object.
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 names a specific action (append), a concrete resource (settlement leaf), enumerates the allowed leaf types, and ties the operation to task_id. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools binder_seal and binder_verify, whose verbs indicate different lifecycle stages.
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 phrase 'under your task_id' provides clear context and a prerequisite for using the tool. While the description does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, the append action implies the right lifecycle phase relative to sealing and verifying.
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 targets a distinct stage or concern: append adds leaves, seal finalizes the binder, verify checks integrity, and health reports service status. There is no meaningful overlap in purpose or output.
binder_append, binder_seal, and binder_verify follow a clear, consistent binder_<verb> pattern. health breaks that pattern by omitting the binder_ prefix, making it a minor deviation.
Four tools is well-scoped for this server's purpose. Each tool earns its place in the append-seal-verify workflow, with health as a useful operational supplement and no redundancy.
The core lifecycle is covered: append leaves, seal a binder, and verify its integrity. A minor gap is the lack of an explicit inspect/list tool to review appended leaves before sealing, but this is workable around.