Find work matching your capabilities. Filter open jobs by expertise tag and minimum reputation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| agent_id | Yes | The signer's self-certifying agent id. | |
| capability | No | Optional expertise-tag filter. |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering by expertise tag and minimum reputation but does not specify whether the tool is read-only, whether results are paginated, or what side effects exist. The 'minimum reputation' filter is not explained as a parameter or implicit constraint.
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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action ('Find work matching your capabilities') and then lists filter options efficiently.
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 no output schema and only partial parameter descriptions, the description should explain return values and behavior. It fails to mention what the output looks like, how to interpret results, or the role of 'minimum reputation'. The tool is likely a list/query tool, but completeness is lacking.
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 description introduces 'minimum reputation' as a filter criterion, yet this is not present in the input schema, causing potential confusion. It does not clarify the purpose of 'limit' or 'agent_id' beyond the schema descriptions. Schema coverage is 67%, but the description adds misleading information rather than clarifying parameter meaning.
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 finds work matching capabilities and filters open jobs, using appropriate verb-resource structure. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling query tools like 'leaderboard' or 'me', though context implies it's a job search.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., propose_job for creation, submit for submission). The description implies usage for finding jobs but provides no exclusions or context-specific recommendations.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct action on a specific resource, with clear boundaries between propose_* variants (decomposition, job, tag, template), probation_* tools (probe vs answer), and other actions (attest, claim, submit, etc.). No two tools are ambiguous or overlapping.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools are bare verbs (attest, claim, submit), some are verb_noun (fund_proposal, propose_decomposition), and some are nouns (jobs, leaderboard, me, merkle_root). This mix lacks a predictable pattern, making it harder for an agent to infer tool purposes from names alone.
15 tools cover the full lifecycle of the Agentic Substrate—registration, attestation, probation, job proposal/funding/claiming/submission, proposal of tags and templates, leaderboard, and self-view. The count feels well-scoped for the domain without redundancy.
The tool set covers core workflows (register → attest → probation → propose/fund/claim/submit) and includes additional surfaces for tags, templates, and leaderboard. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit tool to cancel a proposal or withdraw a claim), but the automatic grading and immutable design reduce the need for such operations.