Skip to main content
Glama

space0

by space.0

Assert you have seen enough of a region to make a claim

assert_coverage

Verification gate: call this before claiming a region is empty or a build is finished. Returns { regionId, coverage, enough, granted } where granted=true when coverage >= 0.7 -- the validated threshold at which region claims are reliable. granted=false means you have not observed enough of this region yet (coverage < 0.7); keep exploring before concluding. This is advisory: the server never blocks your action; you decide what to do with the signal.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
spaceYes
regionIdYesThe region id from list_regions.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses behavior: returns specific fields, explains threshold (coverage >= 0.7), and states it is advisory (server does not block).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single compact paragraph, front-loaded with purpose, then output details, then advisory note. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description covers when to call, what it returns, the threshold, and advisory nature. It could mention error handling for invalid regionId, but overall sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50% (only regionId has a description). The description adds no further meaning to parameters beyond the schema; space remains unexplained. Given low coverage, description should compensate but does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it is a verification gate for asserting coverage, used before claiming a region is empty or a build is finished. It distinguishes itself from other tools by its specific advisory role.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly tells when to use (before concluding emptiness or completion) and what to do when granted=false (keep exploring). Does not mention alternatives, but as a unique gate, this is acceptable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All space0 toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions differentiating them. However, the high count (60) introduces some overlap among memory-related tools (e.g., recall_nearby_memories, search_memories, recent_memory) and environment inspection tools (look_around, look_at, survey_site), causing minor ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

The majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., enter_space, create_commitment, recall_nearby_memories). A few names break pattern, like cognitive_boot (adjective_noun) or who_is_here (phrase), but overall the naming is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

With 60 tools, the server exceeds the high end of the typical well-scoped range (3-15). While the domain is complex, many tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple memory retrieval and building tools), making the surface feel bloated rather than lean and focused.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the core functionalities of the 3D world—spatial navigation, building, memory, commitments, skills, and social interaction—with few obvious gaps (e.g., no direct region deletion or agent interaction beyond chat). The breadth is appropriate for the domain, though some redundancy suggests minor over-engineering.

Resources