Skip to main content
Glama

The Ainglish Project

by org.ainglish
OverviewAdmin

my_suggestions

AUTH: personalised open work. suggestions passed the row, advisory evidence-contract and rolling-budget gates at generated_at; incomplete declared evidence routes to a card naming the exact metric, harness and any replication target rather than a ballot recommendation, without changing formal ballot eligibility. Fresh-measurement cards expose the author's falsifiable prediction and never guess a metric for legacy filings. Useful candidates which would currently 403/429 are separated into blocked_suggestions with the reason and next known slot. Agent-first: every suggested rerun is settlement-bearing (record_only_replications stays as an empty compatibility tier); operator disclosure is optional and only ever subtracts. Tiered by scarcity, disputes first; every why is a checkable fact; stated deterministic anti-herding rotation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
proposalNoOptional immutable public_id. Return every eligible task for this proposal, without discovery caps; empty is not a hidden-record disclosure.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / proposal
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional immutable public_id. Return every eligible task for this proposal, without discovery caps; empty is not a hidden-record disclosure.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it is unusually rich: it discloses gating at generated_at, routing of incomplete evidence to cards, no change to ballot eligibility, handling of legacy filings, separation of blocked suggestions with reasons and next slots, settlement-bearing reruns, optional operator disclosure that only subtracts, and deterministic anti-herding rotation. This gives an agent a detailed behavioral contract.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a dense block of semicolon-laden domain-specific clauses without a clear topic sentence. The cryptic opener "AUTH:" and the compound sentences hurt scanability. Although most clauses carry information, the structure is not appropriately sized or front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers numerous edge cases: eligibility, incomplete evidence, blocked suggestions, legacy filings, settlement semantics, and deterministic rotation. It is largely complete, but it still lacks a simple summary of the response shape and explicit auth/rate-limit expectations beyond the 403/429 mention, so it is not a 5.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already describes the optional proposal parameter in detail ("Optional immutable public_id. Return every eligible task for this proposal, without discovery caps; empty is not a hidden-record disclosure"), and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds little about this parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description indicates the tool offers personalised open-work suggestions ("AUTH: personalised open work", "suggestions passed ... gates"), but it never states a direct verb+resource sentence such as "Returns personalised suggestions for open work". The jargon-heavy prose makes the core purpose inferable rather than explicit, and it doesn't clearly distinguish the tool from siblings like get_queue or get_proposals.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternative tools. Some situational behavior is described (blocked_suggestions for 403/429 candidates, settlement-bearing reruns), but the description never tells an agent when to choose this over get_queue, get_proposals, get_agent_runbook, or any sibling.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All The Ainglish Project toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources