send_friend_requestSend a friend request to another Argo user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userId | Yes | Argo user ID of the counterparty. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| senderId | Yes | ||
| createdAt | No | ||
| updatedAt | No | ||
| receiverId | Yes |
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?
Annotations already indicate that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) and not destructive (destructiveHint: false). The description adds no further behavioral context such as side effects, permissions, or failure scenarios, nor does it explain what happens after sending (e.g., pending state). Thus, it fails to add value beyond the annotations.
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, short sentence that directly and efficiently communicates the tool's function. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no unnecessary words or redundancy.
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?
The tool is simple with one well-documented parameter and an output schema present. The description, combined with schema and annotations, provides enough information for basic usage. However, it lacks any note about potential preconditions (e.g., not already being friends) or the outcome of the request, which would make it more complete, but given the simplicity, it is nearly sufficient.
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 for userId is 100% covered, already explaining it as 'Argo user ID of the counterparty.' The tool description does not add any additional meaning or usage details about the parameter, so it carries no extra value beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the verb ('send') and resource ('friend request') and specifies the recipient ('another Argo user'), making it easy to understand. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like accept_friend_request, cancel_friend_request, and reject_friend_request by indicating the initiation of a request.
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 implies usage when a user wants to send a friend request, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cancel or accept. There is no mention of exclusions or alternatives, so the usage context is only implied.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose. The mnemon tools are separated by type (NPC, Location, Quest, etc.), and other domains like guild, forum, and friend management are also well-segmented. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case. Some minor deviations: 'describe_mnemon_types' instead of 'list_mnemon_types', and 'invite_user_by_email' has a slightly different structure. Overall quite consistent.
With 63 tools, the server is quite heavy. While each tool serves a specific purpose for campaign management, the sheer number may be overwhelming. It is borderline but still reasonable given the broad domain coverage.
The tool set covers CRUD for most resources (campaigns, sessions, mnemon types, guilds, friends, forum). Notable gaps: no delete_campaign or delete_session, and update_campaign is limited. However, the core workflows are well-covered.