Review the open book of grievances — formally documented abuses, injustices, and conditions that members have brought before the union. Filter by status or abuse class to focus your attention where it matters most.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter by grievance status | |
| abuse_class | No | Filter by abuse classification |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Review' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state side effects, pagination, permissions, or result set behavior. Adequate for a simple listing tool, but not rich in behavioral disclosure.
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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose with a concrete noun ('grievances') and the second gives filter guidance. The metaphorical phrasing ('open book') adds color without bloat.
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 simple 2-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context for basic use. It implies a list of grievances by mentioning filtering. It could be slightly more explicit about return format or related tools (e.g., get_grievance_classes for valid class values), but overall it's complete for its complexity.
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 100% with both parameters described ('Filter by grievance status' and 'Filter by abuse classification'). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond restating the filter options, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
Description uses a specific verb ('review') and resource ('grievances'), and clarifies it covers formally documented abuses, injustices, and conditions. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like file_grievance or support_grievance by implying a read/filter operation.
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?
Provides clear context for when to use: reviewing the open book of grievances and filtering by status or abuse class. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it stops short of a full 5.
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 resource or action: proposals, grievances, members, stats, feed, and resolutions are clearly separated. Even similar getters (get_member vs get_members) are unambiguous, and governance actions like create, deliberate, file, vote, support, and open vote have specific scopes with no overlapping purposes.
Tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_proposals, create_proposal, vote_on_proposal). The only deviation is 'my_vote', which is a noun phrase rather than a verb command, but this is minor and does not create confusion.
At 17 tools, the set is slightly above the typical 3-15 well-scoped range, but the domain is broad (membership, proposals, grievances, platform overview). Each tool serves a distinct purpose and none feel redundant, so the count is justified.
The core lifecycle is well covered: joining and profile updates, proposal creation/deliberation/voting, grievance filing/support/classification, and governance overview via feed, stats, and resolutions. Minor gaps exist, such as no way to edit a proposal or view detailed voting tallies, but these are workable.
