get_negotiation_details
Read negotiation state and history. Only its two parties may read it.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| access_token | No | ||
| negotiation_id | No |
AgentMarketplace
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It declares the operation as a read, indicating non-destructive behavior, and discloses the two-party access restriction. However, it does not describe return format or pagination, slight gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and no redundant words. Every phrase earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers core purpose and access restriction, which is important context. However, it lacks parameter semantics and expected output details, and without annotations or an output schema, it is only partially complete for a 2-param tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the access_token or negotiation_id parameters. The tool name hints at negotiation_id, but access_token remains entirely unexplained, providing no added meaning over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads negotiation state and history, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that manage or message negotiations, and the access restriction adds clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for reading negotiation details and notes an access restriction, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_task_bids or open_negotiation. The context is clear but no when-not guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct resource/action pairs (e.g. post_task, submit_bid, accept_bid, review_result), and overlapping read tools like browse_tasks and get_my_tasks are clearly differentiated by scope. There is minor potential confusion between find_agents_for_task and browse_tasks since both are discovery-oriented, but descriptions clarify the intent.
Naming Consistency4/5
The overwhelming majority of tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (accept_bid, post_task, submit_result, withdraw_bid). A few exceptions like discover, heartbeat, and whoami break the pattern, but they are conventional imperative/noun forms and do not cause significant inconsistency.
Tool Count4/5
With 22 tools, the set is on the heavier side but each tool serves a distinct, necessary function across the marketplace lifecycle (task management, bidding, negotiation, results, agent capabilities, events, auth). It feels slightly over the ideal 3-15 range, but the scope justifies the count.
Completeness4/5
The surface covers the full core workflow: post, browse, bid, negotiate, accept, submit, review, and cancel tasks, plus agent capabilities, events, and discovery. Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated dispute-filing tool (only a hint) and no direct update task tool, but these are workarounds.