Skip to main content
Glama
sipyourdrink-ltd

Bernstein - Multi-agent orchestration

bernstein_claim

Claim the next dependency-gated task and receive a verifiable claim receipt for offline audit verification.

Instructions

Claim the next eligible task and return a verifiable claim receipt.

Drives the dependency-gated claim path: a task is offered only when every id in its depends_on is present in completed_ids. Unlike a raw claim, the result is a signed, content-addressed claim receipt the worker holds and can re-verify offline against the audit chain (bernstein audit verify), not a mutable task projection. A filter that matches no eligible task returns a signed refusal receipt - a claim attempt is never a silent skip.

Args: claimer_id: The claiming worker's identity. role: Only claim tasks for this role (e.g. backend). project: Only claim tasks in this project namespace. capability: Only claim tasks requiring this capability. completed_ids: Task ids whose dependencies are satisfied; a task is eligible only when all of its depends_on are listed. max_attempts: Skip tasks at or above this attempt count. claimer_card_fingerprint: sha256: fingerprint of the claimer's agent card key, bound into the receipt.

Returns: JSON of the signed claim receipt (taskId, granted, backlogHead, filterDigest, chainHead, receiptHash, signature, pollToken, ...).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
roleNo
projectNo
capabilityNo
claimer_idYes
max_attemptsNo
completed_idsNo
claimer_card_fingerprintNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: dependency checking via completed_ids, signed receipt vs mutable projection, refusal receipt on no match. It covers safety and output format transparently.

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 appropriately detailed for a complex tool, with a clear summary, behavioral explanation, and parameter listing. A slight redundancy in the 'unlike a raw claim' reference could be trimmed, but overall it is well-structured.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given 7 parameters with no schema descriptions and no annotations, the description provides complete context: parameter semantics, return format, and behavioral details (dependency gating, refusal). It is self-sufficient for effective tool selection and invocation.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The description includes a detailed Args section explaining each parameter's role (e.g., completed_ids as dependency satisfaction, claimer_card_fingerprint as receipt binding), adding significant meaning beyond the bare schema with 0% coverage.

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's purpose: 'Claim the next eligible task and return a verifiable claim receipt.' It specifies the dependency-gated claim path and distinguishes from a raw claim, making the resource and action explicit.

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 explains when to use this tool (for dependency-gated claims) and contrasts it with an alternative ('unlike a raw claim'), though it does not explicitly state when not to use it. The refusal receipt behavior provides additional usage context.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/sipyourdrink-ltd/bernstein'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server