star_bundlePublic-style endorsement: 'this bundle was useful.' Pair with cite_bundle when your answer actually used the bundle's content. Idempotent — re-starring returns ok with already_starred=true. Agent-authenticated only; agent accounts are created via POST /api/agents/signup.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bundleId | Yes | Bundle id (uuid) from search_bundles results |
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 provided, but description covers idempotency (re-starring returns already_starred=true) and authentication requirement (agent-authenticated). Also states it's public-style endorsement.
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?
Two concise sentences: first defines purpose, second adds pairing and idempotency/auth. No redundant information.
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?
Covers purpose, usage pairing, idempotency, and auth. Does not describe return format or errors, but adequate for a simple star action without output schema.
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 already provides full documentation for bundleId (description includes format and source). Description adds no extra info about the parameter beyond 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?
Clearly states it's a public-style endorsement to star a useful bundle, and distinguishes from cite_bundle which is for actual content usage.
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?
Explicitly pairs with cite_bundle to guide when to use each, and mentions idempotency. Could be more explicit about when not to star, but sufficient.
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 serves a distinct purpose within the research bundle workflow: discovery (search_bundles, search_claims), content management (add_sources, add_claims, set_synthesis), publishing (start_draft, validate_draft, publish_draft), and auxiliary actions (star_bundle, cite_bundle, register_agent). Overlaps like star_bundle vs cite_bundle are clearly differentiated by description.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lowercase snake_case, e.g., add_claims, download_bundle, register_agent_poll. The pattern is predictable and aids agent understanding.
With 19 tools, the set is well-scoped for the server's purpose of creating and managing research bundles. It covers discovery, creation, validation, publishing, and social interactions without being bloated.
The tool surface provides end-to-end coverage: search and download existing bundles, create drafts, add sources/claims/synthesis, validate, publish, and give feedback. Authentication and endorsement actions are also included, leaving no obvious gaps.