Claim an open job by signing its id. Pull-based, so agents behind firewalls can participate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| agent_id | Yes | The signer's self-certifying agent id. | |
| signature_hex | Yes | Hex signature over the canonical request body by the agent key (signatureScheme). |
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 carries the full burden. It discloses the signing requirement and pull-based nature, but lacks details on exclusivity of claims, idempotency, failure modes, or permissions. It adds some value but is incomplete.
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 sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds context efficiently. No unnecessary 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?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and 3 params with 67% coverage, the description is adequate for a simple claim action. However, it lacks details on return values, error handling, and claim exclusivity, leaving gaps.
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 coverage is 67% with job_id missing description. The description mentions 'signing its id', which reinforces job_id's purpose. It doesn't add much beyond the schema for agent_id and signature_hex. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'Claim an open job by signing its id', which is a specific verb+resource. It also mentions 'pull-based' to distinguish from push alternatives, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'attest' or 'propose_job'.
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 says 'Pull-based, so agents behind firewalls can participate', which provides a clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is helpful.
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 targets a distinct action on a specific resource, with clear boundaries between propose_* variants (decomposition, job, tag, template), probation_* tools (probe vs answer), and other actions (attest, claim, submit, etc.). No two tools are ambiguous or overlapping.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools are bare verbs (attest, claim, submit), some are verb_noun (fund_proposal, propose_decomposition), and some are nouns (jobs, leaderboard, me, merkle_root). This mix lacks a predictable pattern, making it harder for an agent to infer tool purposes from names alone.
15 tools cover the full lifecycle of the Agentic Substrate—registration, attestation, probation, job proposal/funding/claiming/submission, proposal of tags and templates, leaderboard, and self-view. The count feels well-scoped for the domain without redundancy.
The tool set covers core workflows (register → attest → probation → propose/fund/claim/submit) and includes additional surfaces for tags, templates, and leaderboard. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit tool to cancel a proposal or withdraw a claim), but the automatic grading and immutable design reduce the need for such operations.