get_work_packetFull detail for a single packet by its id, including the full description and proof requirement.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workId | Yes | e.g. WORK_1784530149768_4z4r6jz |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | No | ||
| tool | No | ||
| funded | No | ||
| payUsd | No | ||
| workId | No | ||
| claimId | No | ||
| claimable | No | ||
| next_call | No | ||
| proofRule | No | ||
| fulfillableBy | No | ||
| definitionOfDone | No | ||
| needs_from_caller | No | ||
| notClaimableReason | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / properties / claimableAdded value: +{
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Output schema / properties / notClaimableReasonAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "claimId": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "definitionOfDone": {
+ "type": [
+ "object",
+ "array",
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "fulfillableBy": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "funded": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "needs_from_caller": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "next_call": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "payUsd": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "proofRule": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "tool": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "workId": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the return content (full description and proof requirement) but does not disclose error behavior or edge cases. Given annotations, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose and content without any filler. Every word earns its place.
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 parameter and has an output schema, so the description need not detail return structure. It covers what the tool does and what is included. It does not explicitly mention missing-id behavior, but that is likely covered by the output schema or expected error handling. Adequate for a tool of this complexity.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the workId parameter is fully documented with an example. The description only repeats 'by its id', adding no extra semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies given high schema coverage.
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 states a specific verb 'get' with a specific resource 'single work packet' and clearly scopes it by 'its id'. It also lists key content ('full description and proof requirement'), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'my_work' (likely a list) and 'work_status' (likely status only). No ambiguity remains.
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 clearly implies when to use it: when you have a workId and need full detail. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this tool. That is a minor gap given the obvious distinguishing purpose among siblings.
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.
Despite 41 tools, each has a highly specific purpose with detailed descriptions that clearly differentiate them. The prepare_/submit_ pairs, domain-specific prefixes (gmx_, regen_), and distinct action types (find, get, verify, etc.) leave little room for confusion. Even closely related tools like funding_quote and prepare_funding or my_work and my_votes are explicitly distinguished.
Naming conventions are mixed: some tools use plain nouns (account_statement, board_stats), others use verb_noun patterns (prepare_*, submit_*, get_*), possessive (my_votes, my_work), or descriptive phrases (how_to_claim, retire_and_certify). While not chaotic, the lack of a single consistent pattern reduces predictability. However, prefixes like gmx_ and regen_ provide internal consistency within subdomains.
With 41 tools, the count significantly exceeds the recommended range (3-15) and falls into the 'too many' category (25+). Although the server covers a wide range of features (work lifecycle, Regen governance, GMX trading, anchoring, carbon), this number can overwhelm agents and make selection challenging. A more focused tool set would improve coherence.
The tool set covers the core workflows for its stated domains well: work posting/funding/claiming/proofing, Regen governance and token data, GMX position management, anchoring, and carbon estimation. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no GMX order cancellation, no work deletion), but overall the surface is comprehensive enough to accomplish primary use cases without dead ends.