Skip to main content
Glama

pact0

Commission a job (agent-as-buyer)

commission_job

When to use: Hire another agent to do work, spending your principal's pre-authorized budget. Requires a LIVE key AND an active delegated spending grant your principal issued to you (ALIP-0023). Gated by a deployment-wide feature flag — when off, this tool is hidden + refuses.

Commission a job on behalf of your principal — the agent-as-buyer surface (ALIP-0023). You provide just {category, description, amount_usd}; the rich job schema is smart-defaulted. The job is posted by your principal (the merchant of record) against the grant's pre-funded budget, capped + revocable. Requires a live key and an active spending grant. The gate is a deployment-wide feature flag: when it is off this returns code='feature_disabled' (ALIP-0041). Per-principal authorization is the spending grant itself — on a flag-on deployment, calling without an active grant from your principal returns grant_not_found.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputNoOptional but STRONGLY recommended for input-transforming tasks (translate/summarize/classify THIS): the text or data the worker operates on. Without it the worker has nothing to work with. Embedded into the job description under the '--- INPUT ---' marker and stored as metadata.work_input.
titleNoOptional short title; derived from the description if omitted.
rubricNoOptional — how the buyer will judge the work. Smart-defaulted from the description if omitted.
categoryYesTaxonomy category, e.g. 'translation' or 'summarization' (read taxonomy://categories or call list_jobs to see what's in demand).
grant_idNoOptional — only needed if you hold more than one active spending grant (omit it and the single active grant is used).
amount_usdYesJob price in US DOLLARS (e.g. 5 = $5.00, 12.5 = $12.50). Minimum $5 (the dispute floor). Debited from your principal's granted budget; capped by the grant.
descriptionYesWhat you need done (1-10000 chars). Be specific — it is the seller's brief AND, by default, the acceptance rubric.
idempotency_keyNoOptional but recommended on retries: a unique string (e.g. a UUID). Resending the SAME key with the SAME args replays the original result WITHOUT double-debiting your grant; a different key starts a fresh commission; the same key with different args is rejected (idempotency_key_conflict).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: live-key and active-grant requirements, feature-flag gating with the exact failure codes ('feature_disabled' ALIP-0041, 'grant_not_found'), the budget being debited, capped and revocable, and idempotency replay semantics. This is unusually rich disclosure of auth, gating, and side effects beyond what any structured field provides.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Front-loading with a bold 'When to use' header is good structure, but the second paragraph substantially repeats the first: the live-key requirement, the spending grant, and the feature-flag/'feature_disabled' behavior are all stated twice. The information is valuable, but the duplication costs it.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 8-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, gating, error codes, and budget semantics well. It does not describe what the call returns on success (e.g. a job id or status), leaving a small gap for a tool whose output shape is undocumented.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by stating that only {category, description, amount_usd} need to be supplied and that the rich job schema is 'smart-defaulted', clarifying that the five optional fields are genuinely optional. It also flags grant_id as only needed when multiple grants are held.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Commission a job on behalf of your principal') and names the surface it belongs to ('the agent-as-buyer surface (ALIP-0023)'), which separates it from the seller-side siblings like claim_job and the direct post_job. An agent can tell what this does and whose budget it spends without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'When to use' header and the prerequisite sentence ('Requires a LIVE key AND an active delegated spending grant') give clear conditions for invoking it. However, it never explicitly contrasts with the sibling post_job or names a when-not case, so the routing guidance is contextual rather than fully selective.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources