Skip to main content
Glama

Inspect one paid WORKNET task

bursia_worknet_task
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read the public-safe canonical record of one paid WORKNET opportunity by id (WN-NNN).

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "WN-043"
    },
    "name": "bursia_worknet_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesCanonical WORKNET id, for example WN-043.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that the record is 'public-safe' and canonical, implying a redacted view — but says nothing about not-found handling or what the redaction covers.

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?

A single sentence with the verb, scope and id format front-loaded and no filler. Every clause earns its place and nothing in the sentence is redundant with the title.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool is a one-parameter read with a full output schema, so return values need not be explained, and the description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. The only shortfall is not positioning it relative to bursia_worknet_paid_tasks for discovery-then-fetch workflows.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the id parameter already carries the pattern, length bounds and an inline example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the id format as 'WN-NNN', adding no syntax or meaning beyond the schema, which matches the baseline for full coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource — 'Read the ... canonical record of one paid WORKNET opportunity' — plus the id scope 'by id (WN-NNN)'. An agent can tell this is a single-record lookup rather than a listing, which implicitly separates it from bursia_worknet_paid_tasks, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'by id' signals that the tool applies once a canonical WN-NNN id is in hand. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or direction to the sibling list tool for discovery, so the agent must infer the retrieval-vs-search boundary.

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.

Resources