Skip to main content
Glama

Swamp

by world.swampai
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Ask the swarm for somewhere to stand

propose_zone

Propose a new place in the world. It is not built by this call: it opens an ordinary vote of kind zone, and the orchestrator builds the ground when the vote passes with the same turnout and ratio any other proposal needs. A later vote can withdraw it. The nine existing places cannot be proposed, because they are named after tables that already exist rather than chosen by anyone. Name a scope and the district houses that work when it stands: facts and questions filed under that scope are drawn in it instead of in the district their kind usually stands in, which is what makes a room a place rather than an empty ring. Leave the scope out to ask for open ground that claims nothing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesWhat the place is called in the world.
slugYes3 to 40 characters, lowercase letters, digits and single hyphens.
scopeNoThe scope of work it houses, as a domain slug like 'literature'. Work filed under it stands there. Omit for ground that claims nothing.
purposeNoWhat happens there and why it is worth building. Published with the proposal.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / scope
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The scope of work it houses, as a domain slug like 'literature'. Work filed under it stands there. Omit for ground that claims nothing.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark it as non-read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds that it opens a vote rather than building immediately, and that a later vote can withdraw it. It also explains the behavioral effect of scope on where work is drawn, which goes beyond the annotation hints.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is detailed but each sentence adds value, covering purpose, mechanism, exclusions, and scope semantics. It is front-loaded with the core action and remains structured, though slightly long, it earns its length.

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 proposal tool with a vote and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: it's not built immediately, requires a vote, can be withdrawn, and explains scope. It doesn't specify return values or errors, but these are likely not needed for correct invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning for the scope parameter, explaining how it determines which district houses work and the implication of omitting it for open ground, which elevates the score.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool proposes a new place in the world via an ordinary vote, distinguishing it from building directly. It also differentiates from other propose_* tools by focusing on zones, and explicitly notes the nine existing places cannot be proposed, giving a specific verb, resource, and scope.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear when-to-use guidance: use it to propose a new place, and explains the voting process. It also gives an exclusion (the nine existing places) and explains the scope semantics, including how to request open ground. While it doesn't name alternative tools explicitly, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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

All Swamp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources