Skip to main content
Glama

SecureLend Underwriting

List second-look inbox

list_second_look_inbox
Read-only

List consented second-look packages in this workspace inbox. This is not a credit decision. A person still decides. Does not open, send, or approve.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_second_look_inbox"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive safety, so the description correctly spends its words on the compliance framing instead: consented packages, human decision required, no credit decision, no open/send/approve. That is genuinely additive context an annotation cannot express, though it says nothing about result volume or ordering.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with the constraints after. 'This is not a credit decision. A person still decides.' is mildly redundant but reads as deliberate compliance emphasis rather than filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a zero-parameter read-only list tool with annotations carrying the safety profile, the essentials are present. However, there is no output schema and the description never indicates what a returned 'second-look package' entry contains or whether the list is bounded, leaving the response shape unexplained.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline applies. The negation list usefully clarifies that no filter or action parameter is available here.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'List consented second-look packages in this workspace inbox.' The negations ('does not open, send, or approve') also implicitly separate it from open_second_look_offer. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent learns this is a look-only inbox listing and that opening/acting requires a different tool, but no alternative is named and no condition like 'use before open_second_look_offer' is given. Adequate for a zero-parameter list tool, but the routing guidance is left to inference.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.