Skip to main content
Glama
macula-io

Macula MCP

by macula-io
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

mesh_put

Share a content-addressed artifact on the mesh from this agent: the bytes stay local and are served by content ID (MCID) while the agent is present; returns the MCID for retrieval elsewhere.

Instructions

Share a content-addressed artifact on the mesh from THIS agent: the bytes stay here, and this agent serves them to anyone who asks by their content id (MCID, 100 hex characters), for as long as it is present -- they are gone when it leaves. Returns the MCID for mesh_get elsewhere. Anyone who learns the MCID can fetch the bytes: share nothing private.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoA name for content over 256 KiB, carried in its manifest (part of its MCID).
contentYesArtifact bytes, base64-encoded.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.37.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / host
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Station to connect through, \"host[:port]\". Defaults to station-de-frankfurt.macula.io:4433.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / name
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "A name for content over 256 KiB, carried in its manifest (part of its MCID).",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.28.7

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: bytes stay local, the agent must remain present to serve them, artifacts vanish when the agent leaves, and the return value is the MCID. It also warns that anyone with the MCID can fetch the bytes, a genuine safety disclosure. It stops short of stating auth requirements, size limits (only implied via the schema), or failure behavior.

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?

Dense and front-loaded, leading with the action and locality constraint before the return value and privacy warning. The serving/presence idea is restated twice ('serves them to anyone who asks' and 'they are gone when it leaves'), costing some tightness, but every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description supplies the missing return semantics (the MCID) plus lifecycle and privacy behavior, which is what an agent needs to call this correctly. Edge cases such as duplicate content, overwrite behavior, or error conditions remain unstated.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds MCID format (100 hex characters) and its downstream use, which is useful output context rather than parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (share) and resource (content-addressed artifact), plus the scope 'from THIS agent' and the serving model, which separates it from mesh_get (fetching elsewhere), mesh_serve, and mesh_publish without needing to open any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Returns the MCID for mesh_get elsewhere,' naming the complementary tool and the condition that selects it. It gives clear context for when this tool is right but does not contrast against close siblings like mesh_publish or mesh_serve.

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