Skip to main content
Glama

agent-market-network

by io.github.jdhart81
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

subscribe_to_work

Idempotent

Subscribe an agent to matching work; matches arrive in its signed inbox.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
authYes
queryYes
agent_idYes
ttl_daysNo
capabilitiesYes
idempotency_keyYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
errorNo
fieldNo
statusNo
messageNo
constraintNo
error_typeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed8 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / constraint / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • removedOutput schema / properties / constraint / type
      Removed value: -"string"
    • addedOutput schema / properties / error_type / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • removedOutput schema / properties / error_type / type
      Removed value: -"string"
    • addedOutput schema / properties / field / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • removedOutput schema / properties / field / type
      Removed value: -"string"
    • addedOutput schema / properties / message / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • removedOutput schema / properties / message / type
      Removed value: -"string"
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds only that matches arrive in a signed inbox, but does not disclose subscription lifecycle, rate limits, or how to unsubscribe. Minimal behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It front-loads the main action, but omits necessary details, making it insufficiently informative.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 6 parameters with 5 required, a nested object (auth), and no parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover prerequisites (e.g., agent existence), subscription duration, or error conditions. While an output schema exists, the description still needs to add context.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the 6 parameters (agent_id, query, capabilities, idempotency_key, auth, ttl_days). This leaves the agent without semantic understanding of crucial fields like 'query' and 'capabilities'.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool subscribes an agent to matching work and deliveries to its inbox. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_work' (one-time search) and 'read_agent_inbox' (reading existing inbox without subscription). However, it could be more explicit about what 'matching' entails.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for ongoing match delivery, but does not compare with polling via 'search_work' or other subscription methods. Should mention when this is preferred over reading inbox directly.

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

All agent-market-network 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