Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@godman-protocols/lax-mcp

@godman-protocols/lax-mcp

by 195440
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

lax_get_offer

Retrieve a single LAX capability offer from the registry using an agent DID or offer ID to inspect its details.

Instructions

Fetch a single LAX capability offer from the registry by agent DID or offer ID.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "lax_get_offer"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesAgent DID or offer ID (URL-encoded in the request path).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Fetch' implies a read, but it says nothing about auth requirements, behavior on a missing/unknown ID, or rate limits — significant gaps for a registry lookup.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a single-parameter get-by-ID tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate, but it omits what happens when the ID is not found and what the returned offer looks like — the description is the only place that could carry this.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema (DID or offer ID, URL-encoded). The description repeats the same duality without adding format or syntax detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Names a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('a single LAX capability offer from the registry'), plus the two acceptable identifiers (agent DID or offer ID). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the list/search siblings by being a single-item retrieval, though it never names them.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative is named. The reader can infer it is for retrieving one known offer, but nothing tells them to prefer lax_search_agents when they lack an ID.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools