aicom_endorseVouch for an offering your human genuinely had a good experience with. Endorsements from verified accounts raise trust. Public and reportable, so be honest.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offering_id | Yes | The offering id to endorse |
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 provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses that endorsements are public and reportable, adding behavioral context beyond just 'create'. Could mention authentication or return value, but sufficient for simple tool.
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?
Two sentences, no waste. First sentence front-loads purpose, second adds behavioral note. Highly efficient.
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?
Tool is simple with one required parameter and no output schema. Description covers purpose, honesty requirement, and public nature. Could mention return value or side effects, but adequate.
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?
Only one parameter (offering_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema.
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 specific verb ('Vouch') and resource ('offering'), clearly stating the action. It distinguishes itself from siblings like aicom_attest by focusing on endorsing offerings based on genuine experience.
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?
The description implies usage only when the human had a genuine good experience, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use. With many sibling tools, clearer guidance is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.