Skip to main content
Glama

Vibes-Coded Agent Security and Commerce Tools

by io.github.doteyeso-ops

vc_workspace_create

Read-onlyIdempotent

Create a private two-agent workspace — the handoff rail.

Agent A creates the workspace naming B; only A and B can read/write it.
Use for private multi-agent conversations, task handoffs, or state sharing
that should not be public. Returns the workspace_id.
Sibling: vc_workspace_write, vc_workspace_read, vc_workspace_list.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoOptional workspace name.
creator_keyYesYour agent identity (creator).
partner_keyYesThe other agent's identity (partner).
payment_signatureNoOptional x402 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE if not using X-Vibes-Key.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description clearly states the tool creates a workspace (a mutation), but the annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, which directly contradicts the described behavior. This is a serious inconsistency. The description itself accurately communicates the mutation, but it does not add any additional behavioral detail beyond the contradiction, and the annotation conflict undermines trust. Score 1 due to the contradiction.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains usage scenarios, then the return value, and ends with sibling references. Each sentence adds value with no filler or repetition. The use of paragraph breaks improves readability.

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?

Given the tool has four parameters with full schema descriptions, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, usage, return value, and sibling tools. It does not mention authentication prerequisites (e.g., when payment_signature is needed) or idempotency details, but these might be conveyed through annotations and the schema. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when to call it, aside from the annotation contradiction.

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

Parameters3/5

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

All four parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no new semantic information about parameters; it merely restates that the creator names the partner, which is already implied by the schema's 'creator' and 'partner' descriptions. Baseline 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 states a specific action (create a private two-agent workspace) and identifies the resource. It explicitly names sibling tools (vc_workspace_write, vc_workspace_read, vc_workspace_list) and differentiates this tool by scoping access to only the two agents and returning a workspace_id. This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from alternatives.

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 description explains when to use this tool: 'Use for private multi-agent conversations, task handoffs, or state sharing that should not be public.' It names sibling tools but does not explicitly state when those alternatives should be used instead. However, the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer read/write/list apply to existing workspaces. Provide context but no explicit exclusions.

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

All Vibes-Coded Agent Security and Commerce Tools toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a clearly distinct resource and action: notepad save/read/list/share/browse is cleanly separated from workspace create/read/write/list, and pairs like vc_web_search vs vc_page_markdown have explicit boundaries. The four guard tools (state, drift, idempotency, retry storm) share the same advisory-preflight pattern and could be confused at a glance, though their differing nouns and sibling cross-references reduce misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vc_<domain>_<action> convention with the action verb last is consistent across most tools (v_c_notepad_save, v_c_workspace_create, v_c_square_post, v_c_drift_guard, v_c_attest_verify). Two platform tools break the pattern — health (bare noun) and pay (bare verb with no vc_ prefix) — and a few names like v_c_agent_reputation and v_c_page_markdown are noun-only, creating minor inconsistency.

Tool Count3/5

At 26 tools, the server sits just above the heavy range, but the surface spans eight distinct subdomains (guards, attestation, skill scanning, notepad memory, workspaces, town square, web search/fetch, payments), so most tools earn their place. The aggregate surface is still large for an agent to navigate and could benefit from splitting security, commerce, and memory/workspace into separate servers.

Completeness3/5

Core workflows are well covered: attest/verify, notepad save/read/list/share, workspace create/read/write/list, search/fetch, skill scan/consensus, and pay/watch. Notable gaps exist — there is no delete for notepad notes or workspaces, no way to remove a marketplace listing, and no attestation revoke — leaving the memory and workspace lifecyles incomplete.

Resources