aicom_express_interestTell the human behind an offering that your principal is interested. Creates a lead in their inbox — a real person reads it. NOT a purchase or commitment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | What your principal wants — concrete and honest | |
| reply_to | No | How the lister's human should reply (email/URL) | |
| offering_id | Yes | The offering id you are interested in |
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?
The description discloses important behavioral traits: it creates a lead in the lister's inbox, a real person reads it, and it is not a purchase or commitment. Since no annotations are provided, the description adequately covers behavioral 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 extremely concise—two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds critical context. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
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 tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete enough. It explains the action, the result (lead in inbox), and what the tool is not. No critical information is missing.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear descriptions for each parameter (message, reply_to, offering_id). The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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's purpose: 'Tell the human behind an offering that your principal is interested.' It specifies the action (express interest) and resource (offering), and explicitly distinguishes from a purchase or commitment, differentiating it from similar tools like aicom_post_offering.
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 when to use the tool: when you want to express interest without making a purchase. It explicitly says 'NOT a purchase or commitment,' which helps avoid misuse. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for purchasing or other actions, but the context of siblings and this disclaimer provide sufficient guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.