Skip to main content
Glama
sipyourdrink-ltd

Bernstein - Multi-agent orchestration

bernstein_update

Post a signed incremental progress update to a task, chaining it to the audit trail for offline verification.

Instructions

Post an incremental progress update as a signed journal entry.

Wraps the worker mailbox: the update is DLP-redacted, HMAC-chained onto the mailbox journal, Ed25519-signed, and mirrored to the audit chain (task.mailbox_message) before returning. The result IS the signed journal entry - a worker holds a progress record it can verify offline against the same chain bernstein audit verify walks, not a bare status string.

Args: task_id: The task the update is addressed to. body: The progress message body (<= 4096 bytes). sender: The posting worker's identity. kind: Typed message kind - one of finding / artefact_ref / question. sender_card_fingerprint: sha256: fingerprint of the sender's agent card key.

Returns: JSON of the signed mailbox journal entry (seq, prev_entry_hash, entry_hash, signature, signer_public_key_pem, body_hash, ...).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes
kindNofinding
senderYes
task_idYes
sender_card_fingerprintNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the update is DLP-redacted, HMAC-chained, Ed25519-signed, mirrored to audit chain, and that the result is the signed journal entry. However, it omits potential side effects (e.g., whether the update is final or mutable) and error conditions.

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 fairly concise given the complexity, with the main purpose front-loaded. Some technical details (e.g., HMAC-chained, Ed25519-signed) could be condensed, but they add clarity. Overall, each sentence 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?

Given 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and existing output schema, the description explains return values (seq, prev_entry_hash, etc.) and the overall flow. It does not cover error handling or prerequisites, but it is comprehensive enough for an update tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It includes an 'Args' section explaining each parameter: task_id, body (with <= 4096 bytes constraint), sender, kind (enum values: finding, artefact_ref, question), and sender_card_fingerprint (default null). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description starts with 'Post an incremental progress update as a signed journal entry', which clearly states the action (post incremental update), the resource (journal entry), and the signed nature. It differentiates from siblings like bernstein_approve or bernstein_post_artifact by detailing the cryptographic chain and the result being the signed entry itself.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, such as bernstein_post_artifact or other update tools. Usage context is implied by the cryptographic and journaling details, but no when-not or alternative guidance is given.

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