Skip to main content
Glama
vishalsg42

munim

by vishalsg42
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

work_on_client

Execute a request inside one client's provider accounts using only that client's credentials. Returns a summary of changes and available providers, with every action written to the run log.

Instructions

Carry out a request inside one named client's provider accounts.

Returns what was done in the agent's own words, and which providers it had available. Every change is written to the run log as it happens, so launch_status reads it back.

The agent is built with only this client's sessions, so a request needing a second account has nothing to reach with. Use ask_across_clients to read across every client instead, and fix when the job is repairing DNS or mail, which is deterministic and stops for a person before replacing a record somebody published.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
clientYesThe client to act on, by the name you registered them under. A write resolves this one client's credentials and no other.
requestYesWhat to do, in plain English, for example add a TXT record for domain verification. The agent uses only this client's provider tools.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / client / description
      Added value: +"The client to act on, by the name you registered them under. A write resolves this one client's credentials and no other."
    • addedInput schema / properties / request / description
      Added value: +"What to do, in plain English, for example add a TXT record for domain verification. The agent uses only this client's provider tools."
  2. First observedv0.4.0

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 behavioral burden. It covers what is returned, that changes are logged incrementally and readable via launch_status, and the limitation that the agent only has this client's sessions. It does not explicitly warn about irreversibility, but the write/change language is clear.

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?

Three short paragraphs front-load the purpose, then add return/log behavior and routing guidance. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is no filler.

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?

The description covers what the tool returns, how changes are recorded, and which sibling to use instead. It lacks only an explicit statement of prerequisites or safety caveats for arbitrary write requests, which is a minor gap given the schema and routing details.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains both parameters, including a request example and scoping to one client's credentials. The description reinforces the one-client scope but adds little new parameter-level meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Carry out a request inside one named client's provider accounts.' It also differentiates itself from siblings by naming ask_across_clients and fix and by stating the one-client scope.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly says when not to use it: 'a request needing a second account has nothing to reach with,' and points to ask_across_clients for cross-client reads and fix for DNS/mail repairs. This gives an agent clear routing criteria.

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