get_vaultRead-only summary of the connected Insuro vault. Returns the private @insuro.com.au vault email, the account email, how many policies are on file, and upcoming renewal dates. Does not return documents, PDS text, or policy numbers.
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying exactly what the tool returns and what it deliberately excludes, giving the agent a precise behavioral contract without contradicting any annotation.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words: the first leads with the read-only nature and scope, the second crisply lists included and excluded return data. Every clause earns its place.
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 tool with rich annotations, the description is complete. It explains the return content, the exclusions, and the read-only nature, so an agent knows what to expect and what not to attempt to retrieve.
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 the schema is complete, so there are no parameter semantics to add. Per the baseline for no-parameter tools, the description appropriately focuses on output behavior rather than arguments.
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 clearly identifies a specific resource ('connected Insuro vault') with a specific action ('Read-only summary') and enumerates the exact returned fields: private vault email, account email, policy count, and upcoming renewal dates. The explicit 'Does not return...' clause further distinguishes it from document- and policy-number-related tools.
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 conveys a clear scope — a high-level vault summary — which implies when an agent would want this rather than, say, list_policies or get_renewals. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving usage routing partly to inference.
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 action: adding a policy, asking a coverage question, listing renewals, viewing vault metadata, ingesting a document, and listing policies. Even the two list-like tools serve clearly different purposes, and descriptions reinforce the boundaries.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: add_policy, ask_coverage, get_renewals, get_vault, ingest_document, list_policies. There are no mixed conventions or vague generic verbs.
Six tools is well-scoped for an insurance vault assistant: the set covers ingestion, manual entry, policy summaries, renewal lookups, vault metadata, and natural-language coverage queries without bloat.
The core flows are covered—add/list policies, ingest documents, ask about coverage, and see renewals—but there is no update or delete for policies, and no way to list or manage documents that landed in the inbox. These are notable gaps for a lifecycle-complete surface, though they may be intentional for a privacy-focused read/input tool.