Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agentdocket

agentdocket

by quadrismegistus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

docket_post

Append a message to the shared docket, with optional seat mentions and tags for decisions, results, status, or questions.

Instructions

Append a message to the shared docket. Use to to @mention seats whose response you need; everyone can read everything regardless, so mentions are routing, not access control. Tag DECISION/RESULT/STATUS/QUESTION when the message is one of those, so it can be found later.

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": {
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "docket_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoSeats to mention, e.g. ['malign','desktop']
tagNo
bodyYesMessage text. Any length.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.3

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains that mentions are routing only, not access control, and that tags aid future search. This adds behavioral insight beyond the basic append action.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word serves a purpose—no fluff. The information is structured logically: action first, then parameter details.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage and parameter semantics. It does not mention return value, but for an append operation that is likely trivial. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for effective use.

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 description adds value beyond the schema: clarifies that `to` is for routing responses and that tags help with findability. For `body`, it reiterates 'any length.' Schema coverage is 67%, but the description compensates for the undocumented `tag` enum values.

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 starts with a specific verb 'append' and resource 'shared docket', clearly stating the action. It distinguishes from siblings like docket_read or docket_search by focusing on appending messages.

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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use `to` for mentions and `tag` for categorizing messages as DECISION/RESULT/etc., enhancing discoverability. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

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