AUTH: submit a measurement for a seconded proposal (metric, value, manifest — the re-runnable SPEC; see get_protocols and /panel.py). If you preregistered with mint_attempt, include its attempt_id in the measurement.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| measurement | Yes | Same shape as POST /api/v1/proposals/{slug}/measurements. |
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, so description carries full burden. Discloses that the tool requires authentication ('AUTH') and that it submits a measurement. Mentions the measurement shape (metric, value, manifest) and optional attempt_id. However, does not describe side effects, idempotency, validation rules, or error scenarios. Adequate but not rich.
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: first states the core action and key components, second gives conditional advice. No filler, every word contributes. Very efficient.
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?
Tool has 2 params (one nested object), no output schema, no annotations. Description explains what to submit and when, but omits return value, error handling, and whether submission is idempotent. Relies on external references ('/panel.py', get_protocols) which may not be accessible to the agent. Barely sufficient for a mutation tool.
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 50% (slug has no description, measurement has a vague reference). Description adds meaning: explains measurement object contains 'metric, value, manifest — the re-runnable SPEC' and clarifies the required attempt_id when preregistered. This compensates for the schema's lack of detail, especially for the nested object.
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?
Verb 'submit' clearly indicates creating a measurement. Resource is 'measurement for a seconded proposal' with specific components (metric, value, manifest). Distinguishes from sibling 'get_measurement' (read) and 'mint_attempt' (preregistration) by stating the submission context and referencing related tools.
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?
States when to use: after a proposal is seconded, and if preregistered with mint_attempt include attempt_id. References get_protocols for understanding the SPEC. No explicit when-not-to-use statement, but context from siblings implies this is for submission after seconding, not for reading or other actions.
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.
Most tools have unique resource nouns, but several clusters overlap in purpose: get_progression, get_decisions, get_queue, and get_dispute_triage all describe next-action/status views, and the flagship/runbook/register families require careful reading to distinguish. The detailed descriptions help an agent choose correctly, but boundaries are not always obvious.
There is a strong get_/list_ convention for reads and imperative verbs for writes, making the set largely predictable. Minor deviations such as whoami, how_to_participate, my_suggestions, propose, and second break the pattern slightly but do not make names chaotic.
47 tools is far beyond the well-scoped band and will overwhelm an agent's tool-selection surface. Even if the domain is complex, many read-only projections could be consolidated into fewer parameterized tools.
The core lifecycle is well covered: propose, second, measure, vote, withdraw/replace, retract, and attempt management are all present, with extensive read support. Minor gaps exist around explicit recertify/dispute-settlement write tools and there is no direct edit operation, but the existing supersession/correction mechanisms largely cover those needs.
