Record the Journeyman's rationale for a fix (unverified provenance).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| npub | No | ||
| reason | Yes | Why — the rationale. | |
| repo_name | Yes | Repository name. | |
| statement | Yes | The decision, stated plainly. | |
| dpop_token | No | ||
| decision_id | Yes | Stable id for this decision (e.g. '<repo>#<issue>-<slug>'). | |
| issue_number | Yes | GitHub issue number. |
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?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a write operation ('Record') and mentions 'unverified provenance', but fails to describe permissions required, side effects (e.g., data persistence), error conditions, or response behavior. The governance implications of recording rationale are not addressed.
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 with no unnecessary words. It conveys the core purpose efficiently. However, it could benefit from a slightly more structured format (e.g., separating action from context) without adding verbosity.
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?
With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly. It omits what the tool returns, how it interacts with other entities (e.g., GitHub issues via issue_number), and the meaning of 'unverified provenance' in terms of data integrity. The tool exists in a complex ecosystem of 80+ siblings, and the description provides no integration context.
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 71% (5 of 7 parameters have descriptions), so the schema already provides meaning for most parameters. The description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond the schema. The two parameters without schema descriptions (npub, dpop_token) are set with defaults and their purpose is not clarified. The description's contribution to parameter understanding is minimal.
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 tool records a rationale for a fix, with the qualifier 'unverified provenance'. The verb 'Record' and resource 'rationale' are specific, but the term 'Journeyman' is domain-specific and may not be universally understood, slightly reducing clarity. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cypher_assert_invariant' which focus on recording invariants, but the differentiation is implicit.
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, such as 'cypher_note_rejection' or 'cypher_record_triage'. The description does not specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
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.
The set is heavily clustered: audit_why_exists, explain_capability, suggest_capability_why, and authorize_capability_why all answer the same basic 'why does this capability exist?' question and differ mainly in provenance/authority. Many status and provenance tools (adoption_status, session_status, service_status, issue_provenance, pr_provenance, symbol_provenance, service_provenance) also blur together without close reading.
The overwhelming majority of tools follow a predictable cypher_verb_noun pattern in snake_case, which provides strong naming consistency across a very large surface. Minor deviations such as cypher_oracle_about, cypher_oracle_how_to_join, cypher_which_service_handles, and cypher_what_realizes_capability are noticeable but do not break the overall pattern.
112 tools is an extreme count for a single MCP server, regardless of how well the clusters are named; it heavily burdens tool selection, context, and agent discovery. The set spans unrelated domains including payments, coupons, credentials, provenance, issues, patents, queries, pricing, and NOS transformations, which should be split into separate focused servers.
Many domain clusters have strong lifeycle coverage: COUPs have mint/list/update/delete/redeem, credentials have courier delivery/box status/update/delete/forget, and the named-query catalog has full CRUD plus published-tool management. Minor gaps exist—e.g., no generic list_services, no delete for capabilities, and no close/resolve action for issues—but most flows have no outright dead end.