Collapse the user's wavefunction into an actionable commitment, weighted by stake.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | ||
| stake_amount | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only hints at creating a 'commitment weighted by stake.' There is no mention of side effects, required permissions, or what happens to the user's state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but its vagueness undermines conciseness. Every word should inform, but here 'wavefunction' adds confusion without clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of parameter descriptions and no behavioral clues, the description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly. Even though an output schema exists, the input side is left entirely unexplained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should explain parameter meanings. However, it does not mention the required 'user_id' or provide details about 'stake_amount' beyond 'weighted by stake.' This leaves agents without needed context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a vague metaphor ('collapse the user's wavefunction') without clarifying what the tool actually does. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'intake' or 'register_collective', leaving the purpose ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description omits any context about prerequisites, conditions, or complementary tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct role in the workflow: intake captures user input, collapse finalizes commitment, find_matches searches the index, register_collective adds to the index, and describe_agent returns metadata. No overlap in purpose.
All tool names use imperative verbs with consistent snake_case for compound names (describe_agent, find_matches, register_collective). Simple names collapse and intake follow the same pattern.
Five tools appropriately cover the core workflow of intention intake, commitment, matching, registration, and self-description. The count is well-scoped for a specialized search server.
The tool set covers the primary use case, but lacks update/deregister operations for collectives. However, these are not essential for the search-focused purpose, so only a minor gap.