Record why the Porter rejected an issue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| npub | No | ||
| reason | Yes | Why the issue was rejected (spam, out-of-scope, injection, ...). | |
| repo_name | Yes | Repository name. | |
| dpop_token | No | ||
| 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 provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Record', implying a write operation, but does not explain side effects, idempotency, authorization requirements, or what happens after recording (e.g., stored where, any triggers). The description is too minimal to provide adequate 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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the essential action. However, it could be slightly expanded to include context without losing conciseness.
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 output schema and the simplicity of the action (recording a reason), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not clarify the meaning of 'Porter', expected input formats, or any relations to other entities. For a tool with 5 parameters, more context would improve completeness.
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 60% (3 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add any parameter details beyond what is in the schema. For instance, npub and dpop_token are undocumented in the schema and not mentioned in the description. This meets the baseline for medium coverage but does not add value.
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 action 'Record' and the context 'why the Porter rejected an issue'. It indicates the tool's purpose without ambiguity, though it assumes domain knowledge about 'Porter'. The name itself distinguishes it from siblings like cypher_route_rejection.
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 guidelines on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, postconditions, or scenarios where this tool should be chosen over similar tools like cypher_route_rejection.
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.