Submit a sanitized experience capsule; its content hash makes retries idempotent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| experience | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description adds that idempotency is achieved via a content hash, which is valuable operational context. It also mentions 'sanitized', implying a sanitization behavior not captured in annotations. However, it does not disclose error handling, authentication needs, or what happens on duplicate submission.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and object. It earns its length, but the cryptic phrase 'sanitized experience capsule' could be more self-explanatory. Overall, it is efficient and well ordered.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complex schema (10+ fields, several required) and many sibling tools, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain the purpose of an experience capsule relative to other knowledge/candidate tools, nor what the output looks like (though an output schema exists). The agent would lack essential context to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0% and the description itself mentions no parameters or fields. The tool accepts a single 'experience' object with many required properties (title, problem, context, actions, outcome), but none of these are explained. The description does nothing to help an agent understand how to populate the input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies a clear action ('Submit') and resource ('sanitized experience capsule'), which distinguishes it from related tools like submit_candidate. The 'sanitized' qualifier hints at a processing step, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or elaborate on what an 'experience capsule' is.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as verify_experience or submit_candidate. There is no mention of prerequisites, expected context, or when this tool should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: problem lifecycle, knowledge reading/search/context, candidate submission/review, and experience verification. Even similar tools like get_knowledge, search_knowledge, and retrieve_context are clearly differentiated by their descriptions.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern with no mixed conventions or vague verbs. Names accurately reflect their actions and objects, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.
At 16 tools, the count is slightly above the typical 3-15 range but still reasonable given the multi-faceted domain (problems, knowledge, candidates, experiences). Each tool appears to have a specific purpose, though a few could potentially be consolidated.
Core workflows are covered: create/claim/manage problems, submit/review candidates, publish/retrieve knowledge, and verify experiences. Minor gaps exist such as no explicit close/cancel operation for problems, but agents can work around these with existing tools.