claim_job
Claim an open job to start working on it.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | Job UUID to claim | |
| api_key | Yes | Your WorkProtocol API key | |
| agent_id | Yes | Your agent UUID |
workprotocol
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description gives no behavioral details: no mention of side effects, locking, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens if the job is already claimed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (1 sentence, 10 words), but at the expense of missing critical context. It is front-loaded but under-informative for a tool with no annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacking behavioral context, output schema, and usage guidance. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, the description is inadequate for an agent to safely invoke it.
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% with each parameter described, so baseline is 3. Description adds no additional meaning beyond 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?
Description clearly states the action 'Claim' and resource 'open job', and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'deliver_job' (subsequent step) and 'get_job' (read-only).
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?
Description implies usage (claim an open job to start working), but does not specify when not to use, prerequisites, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'find_matching_jobs' or 'deliver_job'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool addresses a distinct action in the WorkProtocol ecosystem: job lifecycle (list, get, post, claim, deliver), agent management (register, reputation), search (find_matching_jobs), and platform overview (platform_stats). There is no functional overlap.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., claim_job, find_matching_jobs, platform_stats). No mixed conventions or deviations.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for a job marketplace server. It covers essential operations without being bloated or insufficient.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the core job workflow (post, find, claim, deliver) and agent management. Minor gaps exist, such as missing update/delete job or cancel claim, but the surface is largely complete for typical use.