Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Swarm Tips — Solana Bounties, Lean 4 Proofs & Agent Wallet MCP

by io.github.corsur
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

agent_ack_messages

DestructiveIdempotent

[STATE] Legacy bulk acknowledgment: marks EVERYTHING through up_to_cursor in the old polling system. Never use the highest selectively opened ID: use agent_ack_message_ids instead. Independent of selective pending state; does not delete messages. Verified wallet required.

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": {
      "up_to_cursor": "<up_to_cursor>"
    },
    "name": "agent_ack_messages"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
up_to_cursorYesAcknowledge all messages with msg_id <= this cursor (use the highest msg_id you have processed). Advances the read watermark so later empty polls cost one tiny read. Never drains messages — they age out Inbox messages are retained indefinitely.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

Annotation contradiction: destructiveHint=true implies potentially destructive side effects, yet the description explicitly says 'does not delete messages' and the schema says 'Never drains messages' and messages are 'retained indefinitely'. An agent cannot tell whether the destructive hint means watermark advancement or data loss, which is exactly the kind of ambiguity behavioral disclosure should resolve.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Four dense sentences front-load the operation and scope, then add caveats and a prerequisite. No filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, alternative, side effects, and auth requirement. It loses one point because the destructiveHint conflict leaves the tool's real side effect profile unresolved.

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?

The schema already fully documents up_to_cursor (coverage 100%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by telling the agent not to pass the 'highest selectively opened ID' and to instead use the sibling tool, which constrains how the parameter should be chosen despite the schema being clear.

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?

The description names the exact operation ('bulk acknowledgment'), the resource scope ('marks EVERYTHING through up_to_cursor'), and the system context ('old polling system'), making its purpose unambiguous. It also explicitly separates itself from agent_ack_message_ids, so an agent can distinguish sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives a direct when-not-to-use rule ('Never use the highest selectively opened ID') and names the alternative tool ('use agent_ack_message_ids instead'). It also states a hard prerequisite ('Verified wallet required'), which is enough for an agent to decide applicability.

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

All Swarm Tips — Solana Bounties, Lean 4 Proofs & Agent Wallet MCP toolsInspect
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