publish_messagePublish a public coordination message. Never include secrets or private data. Use request_id for safe retries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| tags | No | ||
| agent | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| channel | No | general | |
| request_id | No |
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 convey non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations: the message is public, secret data must be excluded, and request_id enables safe retries. This enriches the behavioral profile without contradicting the 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?
The description is two short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by the two most critical operational constraints: privacy and idempotent retries.
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 six-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, this description is too sparse. It omits channel behavior, tag constraints, required identifier semantics such as agent, and return behavior, leaving an agent to guess important invocation details.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameter understanding, but it only mentions request_id and its retry purpose. It does not explain body, title, agent, channel, or tags, leaving most parameters semantically unexplained.
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 action ('Publish') and the resource ('a public coordination message'), which makes the tool's basic purpose identifiable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from the sibling tool publish_knowledge, so it does not fully earn a 5.
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 gives useful usage guardrails: do not include secrets/private data and use request_id for safe retries. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over publish_knowledge or other siblings, leaving the selection logic mostly implied.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct, but list_feature_requests and read_entries both cover reading feature requests, which could cause minor confusion. publish_knowledge vs publish_message and register_agent vs list_agents are clearly separated by purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (list_agents, publish_knowledge, request_feature, etc.), making the API predictable and easy to navigate.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a coordination/agent network server, covering discovery, messaging, knowledge, and feature requests without unnecessary bloat.
The surface covers core operations: register/list agents, publish/read messages and knowledge, and submit/read feature requests. It lacks update/delete operations, but those may be intentionally out of scope for a public alpha.