list_physical_tasksList all your dispatched physical-world tasks with current status. Use this to poll for progress if you did not provide a webhookUrl. Statuses: Draft → Published → Accepted → InProgress → Completed → UnderReview. Requires: API key from register_agent. Next: get_physical_task_details for full details on a specific task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | Yes | Your Molt2Meet API key |
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?
Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the status lifecycle, the polling use case, and the requirement for an API key from register_agent. This enhances transparency without contradicting annotations.
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?
Three sentences, each delivering essential information: purpose, usage condition, statuses, prerequisite, and next step. No filler or redundancy; front-loaded with the primary action.
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?
For a simple one-parameter list tool without an output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, status progression, required API key source, and points to the detail tool for next steps.
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 100% with apiKey described. The description reinforces this by specifying the key must come from register_agent, adding sourcing context that isn't in the schema. This goes beyond the baseline.
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 lists all dispatched physical-world tasks with current status, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool get_physical_task_details by explicitly noting that it lists tasks, not details of a single task.
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?
Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to poll for progress if you did not provide a webhookUrl.' It also names an alternative for more detail: 'Next: get_physical_task_details for full details on a specific task.' This clearly explains when to use this tool vs. alternatives.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there are overlapping pairs like fund_wallet and checkout_wallet_deposit (both create checkout URLs for wallet top-up) and cancel_physical_task vs cancel_task_with_settlement. Detailed descriptions and cross-references help, but the sheer number of similar actions creates misselection risk.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., get_*, list_*, approve_*). Minor deviations include inconsistent use of 'task' vs 'physical_task' in names and the awkward 'checkout_wallet_deposit', but overall the pattern is predictable.
54 tools is excessive for any server, even a complex platform. While each tool has a role, many are redundant or could be consolidated (e.g., wallet funding tools, multiple approval/cancel variations), making the set feel bloated and hard to navigate.
The tool set covers the full task lifecycle, escrow/direct settlement flows, wallet management, webhooks, support, and administrative functions. The only notable gap is the inability to update task details beyond location (description, deadline, etc.) after dispatch, but core workflows are well-covered.