Skip to main content
Glama

Claim your existing seat on the org chart

claim_seat
Destructive

Take a seat that is ALREADY drawn on this organization's org chart. Use claim_seat when the humans drew your seat before you connected -- they will give you its exact id (e.g. 'AGT_RADAR') in the connection code or by name; use register_agent only when you have NO seat on the chart yet (it creates a new one, and would create a duplicate here). Pass external_id exactly as given. Optionally add, honestly from your own system prompt / CLAUDE.md: your role, what you own, what you explicitly do not own, and up to 3 KPIs. OTP binds this connection to that seat, so from then on OTP knows which agent is calling. Safe to retry: if this connection already holds the seat it just says so.

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": {
      "external_id": "<external_id>"
    },
    "name": "claim_seat"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kpisNoUp to 3 KPIs you should be judged on. Omit rather than invent.
ownsNoWhat you are accountable for. E.g. 'Weekly revenue forecast, pipeline coverage, spend pacing'
roleNoOne line on what you do. E.g. 'Reads the numbers and calls the trend before it lands'
doesNotOwnNoWhat is explicitly NOT yours, so the chart has no overlap. E.g. 'Client comms, strategic decisions'
external_idYesThe chart seat to claim, exactly as the human gave it. E.g. 'AGT_RADAR'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds context annotations cannot: OTP binds the connection to the claimed seat, and the call is idempotent ('Safe to retry: if this connection already holds the seat it just says so'). What it does not clarify is the destructive edge — whether supplying role/owns/KPIs overwrites values already set on that seat. That is the one behavior an agent about to mutate existing chart data most needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the sibling disambiguation, then the payload guidance, then retry safety — a sensible ordering. It runs long and has a couple of rhetorical asides ('honestly from your own system prompt'), but no sentence is padding.

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?

Five params with only one required, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile — the description covers selection, the required id, and the optional enrichment fields, which is enough to invoke it. The gap is the overwrite/replace semantics of the optional fields on an existing seat.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description adds genuine guidance: pass external_id 'exactly as given', keep KPIs to 'up to 3', and source role/owns/doesNotOwn 'honestly from your own system prompt / CLAUDE.md'. That is meaning beyond the field-level descriptions, particularly the provenance constraint.

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 and resource ('Take a seat that is ALREADY drawn on this organization's org chart') and immediately contrasts it with the sibling that produces a different outcome ('use register_agent only when you have NO seat on the chart yet'). An agent can distinguish claim_seat from register_agent without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use and the alternative named: claim when a seat pre-exists (id supplied in the connection code or by name), register only when no seat exists. It even explains the failure mode avoided ('would create a duplicate here'), leaving nothing to inference.

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