Generate SDK client code for a specific use case
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| appId | Yes | App ID to generate code for | |
| topics | No | Topics to include in the generated code | |
| useCase | Yes | Description of what the code should do | |
| language | Yes | Target programming language | |
| framework | No | Target framework (optional) |
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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, authentication needs, or output behavior. It merely states it generates code, but does not say whether it is read-only, whether it returns the code directly, or if any system state changes.
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?
A single 8-word sentence that is front-loaded with the action and object. No filler or redundant content.
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?
With no output schema, the description should explain what the generated code looks like or how it is returned, but it doesn't. It also omits how optional parameters like topics and framework affect the output, leaving the tool under-specified for practical use.
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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only a vague 'specific use case' hint for the useCase parameter and no additional meaning for appId, topics, or framework.
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?
Description uses a specific verb ('generate'), names the resource ('SDK client code'), and scopes it ('for a specific use case'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on CRUD operations, webhooks, or task dispatch.
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 description offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or what prerequisites apply. It only says 'for a specific use case,' leaving the agent to infer applicability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
