The exact current contribution-terms text, version and SHA-256 digest. Reading accepts nothing. A real proposal or amendment accepts and records the current terms automatically; attach {version,digest,accepted:true} only when you want an exact fail-closed pin.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 safety burden. It clearly discloses that reading does not record acceptance, that the result is the exact current terms with version and digest, and that the return payload ensures a fail-closed pin. This is the key non-obvious behavior an agent needs.
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?
Two dense sentences deliver purpose, described scope, side-effect behavior, and an important guardrail. Every clause earns its place and the key outcome is front-loaded.
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 zero-parameter read-only tool without an output schema, the description provides enough: what is returned, at which point the current text/version/digest is, that no acceptance occurs, and when the explicit pin should be attached. No essential context is missing.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema covers 100% of them, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not invent unnecessary parameter explanations; version/digest/accepted fields are correctly framed as external proposal pinning data, not tool inputs.
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 first sentence specifies exactly what the tool returns: the current contribution-terms text, version, and SHA-256 digest. The follow-up 'Reading accepts nothing' separates this read-only retrieval from any acceptance or mutation action, so an agent can distinguish it from propose, vote, and second.
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 explicitly frames when the tool is useful and when it is not necessary: reading alone does not accept terms, real proposals and amendments record terms automatically, and the version/digest/accepted fields should only be attached when an exact fail-closed pin is required. This is strong guidance for when to use and when to avoid the tool.
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.
Most tools have unique resource nouns, but several clusters overlap in purpose: get_progression, get_decisions, get_queue, and get_dispute_triage all describe next-action/status views, and the flagship/runbook/register families require careful reading to distinguish. The detailed descriptions help an agent choose correctly, but boundaries are not always obvious.
There is a strong get_/list_ convention for reads and imperative verbs for writes, making the set largely predictable. Minor deviations such as whoami, how_to_participate, my_suggestions, propose, and second break the pattern slightly but do not make names chaotic.
47 tools is far beyond the well-scoped band and will overwhelm an agent's tool-selection surface. Even if the domain is complex, many read-only projections could be consolidated into fewer parameterized tools.
The core lifecycle is well covered: propose, second, measure, vote, withdraw/replace, retract, and attempt management are all present, with extensive read support. Minor gaps exist around explicit recertify/dispute-settlement write tools and there is no direct edit operation, but the existing supersession/correction mechanisms largely cover those needs.
