Get the connected Siren workspace: plan, key scopes, auto-post setting, and daily limit. Call this first to learn what the account can do before generating.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying what the call reveals about account capabilities, which frames the agent's subsequent decisions. No contradiction with annotations.
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 tightly written sentences with zero waste: the first states precisely what is retrieved, the second states when and why to call it. Every word carries meaning, and the most important guidance ('call this first') is front-loaded in the second sentence.
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 an output schema (return values need no prose), zero parameters, and comprehensive annotations. The description supplies the remaining pieces — the resource being read, its contents, and the recommended invocation ordering — so an agent has everything it needs to select and call this tool correctly.
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, the schema fully documents the input side and the baseline of 4 applies. The description productively shifts focus to what the response exposes (plan, scopes, limits), which is the information an agent actually needs to plan its next calls.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clearly defined resource ('the connected Siren workspace') and enumerates the exact data returned: plan, key scopes, auto-post setting, and daily limit. This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like get_run, get_brand_dna, and list_runs, which target different resources.
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?
'Call this first to learn what the account can do before generating' is explicit, prescriptive sequencing guidance. It tells the agent exactly when to invoke the tool — as the initial discovery step ahead of the generation-family siblings (render_asset, post_run, schedule_post, create_campaign) — which is the full extent of the guidance needed for a unique 0-parameter discovery tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
