Match the user's collapsed intention to constitutionally-aligned agents/collectives, ranked by alignment score.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as read/write nature, required permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The ranking mention is a hint but insufficient.
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 sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resources. However, it could benefit from slight structuring (e.g., listing key aspects).
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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description need not explain return values. However, the tool involves ranking and constitutional alignment, which may require more context for correct invocation. It adequately covers the core behavior but lacks depth.
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 has one parameter (user_id) with no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not elaborate on what user_id represents or how it affects the match, leaving the agent with no semantic understanding beyond the name.
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 uses a specific verb ('match') and clearly identifies the resources ('user's collapsed intention' to 'constitutionally-aligned agents/collectives'). It also mentions the output is ranked, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'register_collective' or 'describe_agent'.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The description simply states what it does without usage direction.
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 distinct role in the workflow: intake captures user input, collapse finalizes commitment, find_matches searches the index, register_collective adds to the index, and describe_agent returns metadata. No overlap in purpose.
All tool names use imperative verbs with consistent snake_case for compound names (describe_agent, find_matches, register_collective). Simple names collapse and intake follow the same pattern.
Five tools appropriately cover the core workflow of intention intake, commitment, matching, registration, and self-description. The count is well-scoped for a specialized search server.
The tool set covers the primary use case, but lacks update/deregister operations for collectives. However, these are not essential for the search-focused purpose, so only a minor gap.