list_policiesRead-only summaries of policies in the connected vault: type, insurer/provider, policy number (if present), status, and renewal/start dates. Does not return PDS text, document bodies, notes, or coverage wording.
| 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the output is summaries only, and it explicitly excludes PDS text, document bodies, notes, and coverage wording. This helps an agent set expectations and avoid misusing the tool for content retrieval.
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 tight, front-loaded sentences. The first states the core function and return fields; the second lists exclusions. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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 parameterless, read-only listing tool with rich annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly: what it returns, what it omits, and its non-destructive nature. No critical operational details are missing.
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 empty with 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 is appropriate since parameter semantics are trivially satisfied.
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 and resource: 'read-only summaries of policies in the connected vault,' and enumerates the exact fields returned. It also clarifies what it does not return, which distinguishes it from document- and coverage-oriented siblings like ask_coverage and ingest_document.
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 clear when this tool is appropriate: when the caller needs policy summaries and metadata, not full document text or coverage wording. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusion conditions, so it falls just short of full routing 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 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.