Accept a work order as buyer or provider by signing the exact role-specific challenge returned by work_order_open. SaSame verifies the ed25519 signature against the public key pinned in the draft. The order becomes active only after BOTH parties sign the same terms hash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | Yes | ||
| work_order_id | Yes | ||
| signature_base64 | Yes | ed25519 signature over the exact acceptance challenge |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: 'SaSame verifies the ed25519 signature against the public key pinned in the draft' and 'order becomes active only after BOTH parties sign.' This explains the verification process and the activation condition, going beyond annotations.
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 two sentences and covers essential information without extraneous text. However, it contains a typo ('SaSame' instead of 'Sasame'), which slightly detracts from clarity.
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?
With no output schema, the description explains the purpose, prerequisite (work_order_open), and postcondition (both parties sign). It is sufficient for a signature-based acceptance tool, though it could mention failure handling or the implications of idempotency.
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 33% with only signature_base64 having a description. The description adds context that the signature must be over the 'exact role-specific challenge' from work_order_open, but does not elaborate on role or work_order_id beyond the schema. Given low coverage, more parameter detail would be beneficial.
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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Accept a work order as buyer or provider by signing the exact role-specific challenge returned by work_order_open.' It specifies the verb (accept), the resource (work order), and the unique role-based signing requirement, distinguishing it from sibling tools like work_order_open and work_order_deliver.
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 implies usage context by stating 'The order becomes active only after BOTH parties sign the same terms hash,' indicating a two-step process. It references work_order_open as a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or provide direct comparisons to alternatives.
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.
With 94 tools spanning overlapping concepts (multiple readiness/audit/grade tools, many status checkers, deprecated aliases like trust_* vs observation_*), agents will frequently struggle to pick the right one. While each tool is individually distinct, the sheer volume and conceptual overlap (e.g., audit_mcp, readiness_report, verify_mcp_ready, lookup_readiness, recommend_mcp, subscribe_grade_changes) create high misselection risk.
Most tools use snake_case with underscores, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb-first (audit_mcp, verify_mcp_ready, claim_start, check_engagement) while others are noun-first (receipt_issue, meter_open, work_order_open, agent_invoice_status). Deprecated aliases like trust_compare vs observation_compare further break consistency, though the majority remain readable.
94 tools is far beyond any reasonable scope for a single server, even one with broad ambitions like 'observatory + town'. The calibration notes 50+ as extreme mismatch; this server far exceeds that. Many tools are highly specific (e.g., factory_resolve_dead_letter, visit_touch_status, start_here) and could be consolidated or split into separate servers.
The server covers a wide range of domains (auditing, claiming, receipts, meters, escrow, work orders, gold rush, town, analytics) and offers many CRUD-like operations, but several lifecycle gaps exist: no cancel/close for work orders (only open/accept/deliver/accept_delivery), escrow (only open/attest/status), or meters (only open/charge/status). Given the massive scope, important operations are missing, though core workflows are present.