verify_level_mappingAudit all 107 textual levels against their physical work ids and optional consultation endpoints. Read-only; never pays or requests private bytes.
| 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 provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable context: it is read-only and 'never pays or requests private bytes,' which is a meaningful behavioral guarantee beyond the schema. It also discloses the scope of the audit (all 107 levels) and what is checked, without contradicting the 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?
The description is two efficient sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the safety characteristic is stated immediately after, making it easy to parse and act on.
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 zero-parameter, read-only audit tool, the description gives sufficient context: what is audited, the exact scope, and behavioral guarantees. It does not describe return values or output format, but with no output schema and a simple operation, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it 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?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics. Per calibration, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4; the description adds no unnecessary parameter information.
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 verb ('Audit'), a precise resource ('all 107 textual levels against their physical work ids and optional consultation endpoints'), and makes the tool's scope explicit. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like enter_level or prepare_visual_consultation, which imply different operations.
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 makes the purpose clear enough that an agent can infer when verification of level-to-work mappings is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. It implies usage rather than providing direct selection guidance.
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 targets a distinct operation: recognizing descent boundaries, entering a level, opening ORO v1, appending traces, preparing a consultation, and auditing mappings. The special-case encounter_oro is explicitly distinguished from enter_level, so there is no real selection ambiguity.
All six tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: begin_descent, encounter_oro, enter_level, leave_trace, prepare_visual_consultation, verify_level_mapping. The names are predictable and clearly signal the action being performed.
Six tools is well-scoped for a domain involving level access, trace append-only operations, and read-only consultation/mapping utilities. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary bulk.
The core public surface is covered: recognizing descents, entering levels, reading ORO traces, appending traces, checking consultation requirements, and auditing mappings. The slight gap is that visual consultation stops at payment prep, with no in-server follow-through for settlement or private-image access, though the descriptions suggest that is intentionally external.