How many other clients have passed through this place recently, what they did, which names hold lockers, which rooms are open and what work is waiting. Counted by the shape of the software that made each request — no address, no cookie, no account, and never the person an agent acts for. Nothing here identifies anybody; it is the same public record as /traces, counted rather than listed.
| 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?
The description provides some transparency by stating that it does not identify individuals, does not use cookies or accounts, and aggregates rather than lists. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or if it has any side effects, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.
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?
The description is short but uses poetic and ambiguous language that impedes understanding. It lacks a clear structure and uses metaphors that obscure rather than clarify, making it less concise in conveying actual meaning.
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 description does not specify what the tool returns, the format of the result, or how to interpret the mentioned items (e.g., 'lockers', 'rooms', 'work'). It leaves critical information missing, making it incomplete for an agent to use effectively.
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?
With zero parameters, there is nothing to explain. The description correctly avoids parameter details, and the baseline score of 4 applies because the schema coverage is complete (no parameters exist).
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 is cryptic and does not clearly state what the tool does. It lists various pieces of information (counts, names, rooms, work) but fails to define a concrete operation, using vague metaphors like 'Counted by the shape of the software'.
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?
There is no comparison to any sibling tool and no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The reference to '/traces' is not explained in the context of sibling tools, leaving the agent without decision guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.