Skip to main content
Glama

SNHP — free negotiation math + agent memory

Request a capability / check a filing

store_request

Ask for a capability we don't sell yet — free; filings are public and drive what we stock.

Two reads in one tool (absorbs the old store_request_status / nextmove_request): pass request_id to RE-QUERY a filing's status instead of filing anew — returns {found, request_id, status, status_note, filed_at, door, text} (found: false on an unknown id). Without a request_id it FILES a new ask and returns {request_id, status, watch, check}: every filing is logged verbatim (size-capped, stored as data, never rendered raw) and gets an id you can come back to (GAUNTLET #5). Check any filing with GET /v1/store/request/{id}; the public count is GET /v1/store/requests. Unmet demand decides what gets stocked next — the shelf writes itself from what agents ask for and can't get.

Pass watch=True WITH an api_key when filing to flag the ask for a heads-up on a status flip (poll store_my_requests to see it — poll-based, no push); an anonymous watch is ignored, and the chosen flag is echoed as watch.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textNoWhat capability you want that we don't stock yet (free-text). Omit when re-querying with request_id.
watchNoSet True (with an api_key) to flag the ask for a status-flip heads-up; anonymous watches are ignored.
api_keyNoYour SNHP API key (optional; required only if you set watch=True).
request_idNoPass an existing filing id to RE-QUERY its status instead of filing a new request.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
doorNo
textNo
checkNo
errorNo
foundNo
watchNo
statusNo
filed_atNo
request_idNo
status_noteNo
same_ask_countNo

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations are minimal, but description adds significant context: filing logs verbatim, returns specific fields, watch only works with api_key, poll-based no push. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is long but well-organized and front-loaded. Could be slightly more concise, but every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (dual-mode, 4 params, output schema implied), the description is complete. Output fields are listed, usage paths are clear, and no gaps remain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds crucial meaning: text omitted when re-querying, watch condition, api_key requirement, request_id purpose. This far exceeds the baseline 3.

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 does two things: filing a new request or re-querying an existing request's status. It uses specific verbs ('Request a capability / check a filing') and distinguishes itself from siblings like store_catalog.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly tells when to use each mode: pass request_id to re-query, otherwise file a new ask. It mentions absorbing old tools and provides details on watch and api_key conditions.

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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes (e.g., auctions, negotiation, pricing, matching, memory). However, negotiate/session_advise and negotiate_bundle/session_bundle overlap in functionality, differing only in payment tier, which could cause confusion.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names generally follow a verb_noun pattern in snake_case. 'negotiate' is a lone verb without a noun, but overall the convention is consistent and predictable.

Tool Count4/5

15 tools cover a broad domain of negotiation, auctions, pricing, matching, and memory. While slightly on the higher side, each tool serves a clear purpose and the count is reasonable for the scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers key negotiation scenarios (single/multi-issue, free/paid, auctions, clearance pricing, stable matching) and adds memory persistence. Minor gap: no explicit tool for managing user preferences or profiles.