Record the actionable spec and the code-location method for an issue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| npub | No | ||
| repo_name | Yes | Repository name. | |
| dpop_token | No | ||
| issue_number | Yes | GitHub issue number. | |
| resolved_via | Yes | How the code was located: 'graph' | 'scoped-grep' | 'wide-grep'. | |
| actionable_text | Yes | The Porter's rough-English -> actionable spec translation. |
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?
With no annotations, the description fails to disclose critical behavioral traits. It implies a write operation but does not explain idempotency, authentication requirements (npub, dpop_token), or side effects. The term 'Record' is vague.
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, but it is too brief for a tool with 6 parameters. It sacrifices essential details for brevity, making it less useful for precise invocation.
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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, authentication, and how this tool fits into the workflow (e.g., relation to cypher_record_triage and cypher_report_issue).
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 description adds no meaning beyond the input schema for the 4 described parameters. It ignores the two undocumented parameters (npub, dpop_token) entirely, providing no context for them. Schema coverage is 67%, but the description does not compensate for the gaps.
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 tool's purpose: to record the actionable spec and the code-location method for an issue. It uses a specific verb ('Record') and identifies distinct resources, which helps differentiate it from siblings like cypher_record_triage.
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. It does not mention prerequisites, such as the issue must already exist, nor does it contrast with related tools like cypher_record_triage or cypher_link_issue_to_capability.
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.
The set is heavily clustered: audit_why_exists, explain_capability, suggest_capability_why, and authorize_capability_why all answer the same basic 'why does this capability exist?' question and differ mainly in provenance/authority. Many status and provenance tools (adoption_status, session_status, service_status, issue_provenance, pr_provenance, symbol_provenance, service_provenance) also blur together without close reading.
The overwhelming majority of tools follow a predictable cypher_verb_noun pattern in snake_case, which provides strong naming consistency across a very large surface. Minor deviations such as cypher_oracle_about, cypher_oracle_how_to_join, cypher_which_service_handles, and cypher_what_realizes_capability are noticeable but do not break the overall pattern.
112 tools is an extreme count for a single MCP server, regardless of how well the clusters are named; it heavily burdens tool selection, context, and agent discovery. The set spans unrelated domains including payments, coupons, credentials, provenance, issues, patents, queries, pricing, and NOS transformations, which should be split into separate focused servers.
Many domain clusters have strong lifeycle coverage: COUPs have mint/list/update/delete/redeem, credentials have courier delivery/box status/update/delete/forget, and the named-query catalog has full CRUD plus published-tool management. Minor gaps exist—e.g., no generic list_services, no delete for capabilities, and no close/resolve action for issues—but most flows have no outright dead end.