update_commitmentStatus-update an active commitment. Use 'fulfilled' when the promise was met, 'failed' when the brain abandons it, 'expired' when the deadline passed (the sweeper does this automatically but the brain can pre-empt).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| status | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains that this tool modifies commitment status and details the meaning of each status. It also mentions the sweeper's automatic behavior, providing context beyond the annotations (which only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false). No contradictions.
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, each earning its place. The first sentence states the core purpose. The second provides specific usage guidelines for each status. No wasted words.
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?
The tool has 2 required parameters and no output schema. The description covers the status parameter well and mentions the sweeper for automatic expiration. It does not explicitly state the return value, but given the simplicity of the tool, the description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the status parameter's enum values thoroughly (fulfilled, failed, expired) with usage guidance. The id parameter is not described, but as a required identifier it is self-explanatory. The description adds meaning beyond the 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?
The description starts with 'Status-update an active commitment', clearly stating the verb (update) and resource (commitment). It then lists the three possible status values and their meanings, distinguishing it from sibling tools like commitment_sweep and extend_commitment.
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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each status: 'fulfilled' for met promises, 'failed' for abandoned, 'expired' for deadlines passed. It also notes that the sweeper handles expiration automatically but the brain can pre-empt, clearly stating when to use an alternative tool.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.