Add an open quest (a tracked goal or task).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| detail | No | ||
| priority | No | ||
| workspace | No | Project/workspace to scope to (defaults to this connection's workspace; isolates work streams within your account) |
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It communicates that this is a write operation ('Add') and defines what a quest is, but it doesn't state what state the quest starts in, whether duplicates are allowed, whether 'open' is the default state, what side effects occur, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.
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?
A single 9-word sentence with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, the domain term is clarified inline, and nothing extraneous is included. This is an appropriate size for a simple creation tool.
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 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a large sibling family, the description is too thin for an agent to invoke the tool with full confidence. It doesn't disambiguate from wyrm_capture, doesn't explain the 'open' state semantics, and doesn't indicate what a successful call returns. The schema covers the workspace parameter, but the overall picture is incomplete.
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 only 25% (only 'workspace' has a description), so the description should compensate for the undocumented title, detail, and priority parameters. It does not — the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the field names imply. Some weight is carried by the self-explanatory names and the priority enum, but the description itself contributes nothing here.
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 uses a specific verb ('Add'), a specific resource ('quest'), and clarifies the domain term with a parenthetical ('a tracked goal or task'). The qualifier 'open' adds state context, which helps distinguish it from wyrm_quest_complete and wyrm_quest_update. It doesn't explicitly name any sibling, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among the 30 siblings, wyrm_capture and wyrm_quest_claim/update could plausibly overlap with adding a quest, and the description gives the agent no decision criteria for selecting this one. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the name and schema.
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.
Multiple tools have heavily overlapping purposes: wyrm_all_quests vs wyrm_quest_list, wyrm_decision_downstream vs wyrm_decision_trace, and wyrm_recall vs wyrm_search are near-duplicates in behavior. wyrm_capture also overlaps with wyrm_remember, wyrm_truth_set, wyrm_quest_add, and wyrm_decided_because, making it hard for an agent to reliably pick the right tool.
Most names share the wyrm_ prefix and many follow a resource-action pattern like truth_set, quest_list, and failure_record. However, the pattern is broken by names like wyrm_all_quests, wyrm_decided_because, wyrm_context_build, wyrm_remember, and wyrm_capture, mixing noun-first, verb-first, and non-patterned names.
At 31 tools this is above the heavy threshold, and several tools appear redundant or mergeable, such as wyrm_all_quests/quest_list, decision_trace/downstream, capture/remember, and context_build/session_prime. The breadth is real, but the count feels inflated by overlapping entry points rather than distinct capabilities.
The tool surface covers core lifecycles well: quests have add/claim/update/complete/release, failures have record/check/list/resolve, decisions have record/trace/invalidate, and the vault has full get/put/list/delete. The main gaps are the lack of delete/update for memory artifacts and ground truths, and no explicit way to remove stale artifacts.
