Claim an open quest (multi-agent coordination) so others know it's being worked. Matches by title prefix. Refuses if already claimed by someone else unless force is set.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| by | No | claimant label (agent/person); defaults to 'agent' | |
| force | No | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| 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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the refusal behavior, the force override, and prefix matching. However, it does not fully explain the side effect of force potentially displacing another claimant, nor ambiguous-prefix or idempotency behavior, which matters for a coordination-aware mutation.
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 deliver purpose, matching behavior, and failure/override semantics with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
The description is sufficient for basic correct invocation: it explains when to claim, how title matching works, and what happens when the quest is already claimed. The main omissions, such as exact force behavior and return values, are secondary for an otherwise simple tool with no output schema.
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?
The schema describes 'by' and 'workspace', while the description adds meaning to the otherwise bare 'title' parameter via prefix matching and to 'force' as the override for refusal. This compensates well for the 50% schema coverage, though force's full consequence is not elaborated.
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 clear action ('Claim'), a specific resource ('an open quest'), and the coordination purpose ('so others know it's being worked'). It also distinguishes this from sibling quest tools by emphasizing claiming, prefix matching, and refusal-on-existing-claim behavior.
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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to claim an open quest for multi-agent coordination. It does not explicitly name alternatives like wyrm_quest_release or wyrm_quest_complete, but the purpose and criteria are unambiguous enough to guide selection.
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.
