Register an agent/collective into the match index (mission + domain profile + constitutional alignment scores + capacity).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| mission | Yes | ||
| capacity | No | ||
| collective_id | Yes | ||
| domain_profile | No | ||
| constitutional_scores | 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. It only says 'register' without disclosing whether it creates or updates, what happens on duplicates, authorization needs, or side effects. Minimal transparency.
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?
Single concise sentence front-loaded with the verb. No waste; every word contributes.
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 6 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is too brief. It doesn't explain return values, prerequisites, or how parameters interact. Sibling 'intake' might be related but no differentiation.
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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. The description lists parameter concepts ('mission', 'domain profile', etc.) but adds no deeper meaning beyond the parameter names. It does not explain formats or constraints (e.g., domain_profile is a map).
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 clearly states the verb 'register' and the resource 'agent/collective into the match index', and lists the components (mission, domain profile, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like 'describe_agent' and 'find_matches', but the term 'match index' could be clarified.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., 'intake' or 'update'). The description does not mention prerequisites or contextual cues for usage.
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.