Identifies missing shot shapes and unserved flight slots across BagIQ's 9 core slot targets (putter, midrange, fairway, and distance drivers), ranking voids by severity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| discs | Yes | List of discs in the bag |
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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool checks against exactly 9 core slot targets and ranks voids by severity, implying a read-only analysis. However, it does not state whether it mutates anything, what the output format is, or any limitations beyond the 9-slot model.
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 dense, front-loaded sentence states the action, scope, and ordering behavior with no filler. Every clause adds information an agent needs.
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 one-parameter analysis tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context to understand what will be computed and how results are prioritized. It could mention the exact return shape, but the core behavior and scope are sufficiently specified.
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?
The schema covers 100% of parameter meaning, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new semantics about the single 'discs' parameter, but none are needed since the schema already documents strings and object forms thoroughly.
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 names a specific verb ('Identifies'), a concrete resource (BagIQ's 9 core slot targets), and a precise outcome (missing shot shapes, unserved flight slots, severity ranking). It is clear enough to stand apart from general bag tools like analyze_bag, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings.
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 intended case is implied: use this when you need to find gaps across the nine core slots. But there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or mentions of alternatives such as detect_overlap or recommend_bag_fillers, so an agent must infer when this tool is preferred.
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.