Performs a complete BagIQ analysis on a player's disc golf bag. Returns slot coverage percentage, bag identity label (e.g. 'Overstable-heavy', 'Chaos bag'), top missing shot gaps, redundant overlaps, and mapped flight coordinates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| discs | Yes | List of discs currently in the bag (1 to 35 discs) | |
| preferred_brand | No | Optional preferred brand for recommendations (e.g. 'Innova', 'Discraft') |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a non-mutating analysis that returns a set of computed metrics, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, rate limits, failure conditions, or whether a BagIQ computation has any side effects/costs.
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?
One compact sentence front-loads the action and then lists every meaningful output category; there is no filler, marketing language, or repetition of schema content. All listed items earn their place by telling the agent what result to expect.
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?
For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description's return-value list provides necessary output information and the required discs parameter is covered by the schema. However, it lacks guidance on how this comprehensive analysis relates to the specialized sibling tools and does not mention prerequisites or candidate use cases, leaving some selection context incomplete.
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 100%, so the schema already documents the discs array and preferred_brand. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond implying that the analysis is over the player's bag, so it earns the baseline 3 rather than compensating for any schema gaps.
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 states a specific action ('Performs a complete BagIQ analysis') on a clear resource ('a player's disc golf bag') and enumerates concrete outputs (slot coverage, identity label, gaps, overlaps, flight coordinates). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from specialized siblings like find_bag_gaps or detect_overlap, though the comprehensive output list makes the distinction inferable.
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 phrase 'complete BagIQ analysis' implies this is the whole-bag diagnostic entry point rather than a targeted gap/overlap check, and the return list includes gaps and overlaps. However, there is no explicit statement about when to choose this over build_minimal_bag, detect_overlap, find_bag_gaps, or recommend_bag_fillers, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
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.
Each tool has a distinct primary purpose, but analyze_bag returns both gap and overlap findings, which overlaps with find_bag_gaps and detect_overlap. This could create ambiguity when choosing between broad analysis and targeted diagnostics.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: analyze, build, detect, find, recommend. The style is uniform and predictable.
Five tools is well-scoped for a specialized disc golf bag analysis server. Each tool covers a meaningful facet of the workflow without unnecessary bloat.
The tool set covers the full analysis lifecycle: overall assessment, gap detection, overlap detection, fill recommendations, and minimal bag construction. No critical workflow dead ends are apparent for the stated domain.