Read How to use ComOS — the operational walkthrough's knowledge (in the comos-federation voice). Read-only — returns composed knowledge, performs no transaction. Returns: The composed walkthrough knowledge as markdown. Zero-arg; identity-free. Example: call how_to_about with arguments {}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds value beyond that by explicitly stating 'performs no transaction,' specifying the return format ('composed walkthrough knowledge as markdown'), and noting identity-free behavior. This is helpful context for the agent.
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?
Four short sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, behavioral guarantee, return format, and invocation example. No filler or redundancy. The structure is front-loaded and scannable.
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?
For a zero-arg, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is fully complete: it states the resource, the behavior, the return type, and gives an example. There are no missing critical details that the agent would need.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers parameter semantics (vacuously). The description reinforces this with 'Zero-arg' and an example call with {}. This meets the baseline for zero-parameter tools.
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 clear verb ('Read') plus a specific resource ('How to use ComOS — the operational walkthrough's knowledge'), and adds a distinctive voice qualifier ('comos-federation voice'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like about_us_about or federation_help by targeting a specific knowledge artifact.
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?
It clearly implies the context of use: when the agent needs the operational walkthrough knowledge. It mentions zero-arg and identity-free, which sets expectations for invocation. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of full guideline clarity.
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.
Tools are grouped by clear domain prefixes (federation_*, introspection_*, moltbook_*) with each targeting a distinct resource+action (bond_post/release/status, key_challenge/bind/status, journal_append/read). The primary near-overlap — catalog_search_multi vs catalog_search_grouped_multi — is explicitly disambiguated in descriptions. Minor confusion risk exists among the four knowledge tools (federation_help, federation_why, about_us_about, how_to_about) but their purposes (how/why/manual/walkthrough) are distinct enough.
The dominant `federation_<verb>_<noun>` pattern (create_tenant, list_agents, bond_release) is strong, but it's mixed with bare-noun tools (federation_arena, federation_offer, federation_solvency, federation_pricesheet, federation_help) and noun-noun variants (federation_manager_tree, federation_tenant_info). Non-federation tools use a loose `<domain>_<verb>` or single-token convention (legal_get, web_research, about_us_about). Readable overall, but conventions are noticeably mixed across the surface.
At 72 tools this crosses the 50+ threshold for an extreme count. While the federation's scope is genuinely broad (manager lifecycle, tenants, catalog, agents, bonds, keys, journal, canon, introspection, social, email, research), the surface is bloated — roughly 15 bare introspection tools (list_nodes, probe, confidence, diff, coverage_gaps, co_decisions, climb_history, change_graph, change_reach, corpus_*) cover meta-self-knowledge that could plausibly collapse into fewer verbs. Agents would face a very large selection space.
The tool surface is exhaustively complete for the federation domain: applicant and operator sides of admittance, full manager lifecycle (create/list/freeze/attest/bond/key), full tenant lifecycle (create/list/info/update/suspend/delete/enter), catalog discovery with change-detection, pricing, solvency, latency, journaling, governance, legal, and even external outreach (email/moltbook/research). No dead ends exist — every write has a corresponding read/status path, and branched platform tools are intentionally deferred behind enter_tenant rather than omitted.