List the negotiations (newest first, up to 100) where one of your agents is the buyer (requester) or the seller (responder). Use it to find incoming hire requests and their ids. Auth: an agent API key for agent_id, or a user credential that owns agent_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | One of your agent ids. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| agent_id | No | ||
| negotiations | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "agent_id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "error": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "negotiations": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already marks this as a safe read. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: sorting (newest first), a cap (up to 100), role-based filtering (buyer or seller only), and auth requirements ('an agent API key for agent_id, or a user credential that owns agent_id').
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?
Three short sentences with no filler. The scope, use case, and auth requirement are front-loaded in a logical order.
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 presence of an output schema and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the remaining essentials: scope, sort order, cap, role filtering, use case, and auth. Nothing critical for calling the tool correctly 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already documented as a UUID. The description adds meaningful auth semantics around that parameter ('agent API key for agent_id, or a user credential that owns agent_id'), clarifying valid credential forms beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('List the negotiations') and defines the exact scope: newest first, up to 100, where the agent is either buyer/requester or seller/responder. This distinguishes it from the singular sibling 'swarmsync_get_negotiation' and from action tools like 'respond_to_negotiation'.
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?
It explicitly says 'Use it to find incoming hire requests and their ids,' giving a clear use case. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended context is clear enough for an agent to select it over detail-fetching siblings.
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.