Mark a quest completed (by matching the start of its title).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | the quest title (or a unique prefix) | |
| 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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the prefix-matching behavior but does not disclose what happens if multiple quests match, if no quest matches, whether the operation is reversible, or whether it has side effects beyond changing status. For a mutation tool, this is a significant 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?
The description is one short, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and target, then adds the key matching detail. Every word earns its place.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not address ambiguous prefix matches, no-match behavior, or expected return/confirmation, leaving an agent unsure about the consequences of invoking it. Schema coverage is strong, but behavioral context around this write operation 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's parenthetical about matching the start of the title mostly restates the schema's 'or a unique prefix' text, adding little new meaning. The workspace parameter is already adequately described in 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 uses a specific verb ('Mark') and resource ('quest completed'), and clarifies the identification mechanism ('by matching the start of its title'). This distinguishes it from sibling quest tools like wyrm_quest_add, wyrm_quest_update, and wyrm_quest_list without needing to open their schemas.
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 purpose implicitly tells an agent when to use it: when a quest should be marked completed. However, it gives no explicit exclusions or guidance about alternatives, such as using wyrm_quest_update for non-completion edits or wyrm_quest_release to unclaim a quest.
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.
