Antevo Executive Brief

Get coverage

get_coverage

Read-onlyIdempotent

One coverage area's note in full — for example real-assets-shipping or real-assets-aviation. scope 'retail' (default) or 'institutional'; the institutional read is longer and assumes more. Optional as_of (YYYY-MM-DD) for a past edition, newest otherwise. Cheaper and more direct than pulling the whole brief to read one theme. Call list_coverage for the areas and their dates.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`area`	Yes
`as_of`	No
`scope`	No	retail

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations: institutional scope is longer and assumes more, as_of returns a past edition, and this tool is cheaper than the full brief. It also correctly implies a safe read operation with no destructive side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences cover purpose, parameters, behavior, and alternatives without waste. The key purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description supplies everything needed to call the tool correctly: parameter values, defaults, date behavior, and how to find valid areas. There are no significant gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: area is illustrated with examples, scope is given with allowed values and default, and as_of is specified with format and semantics. All three parameters are meaningfully explained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action: retrieving one coverage area's note in full, with concrete examples like real-assets-shipping and real-assets-aviation. It also differentiates from siblings by framing itself as cheaper and more direct than pulling the whole brief.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly explains when to use this tool versus alternatives: use it to read one theme instead of the whole brief, and call list_coverage to discover the areas and their dates. This gives the agent clear routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Antevo Executive Brief tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools map clearly to distinct resources: get_* for retrieval, list_* for enumeration, search_* for lookup, track_* for time series. Some overlap exists between get_executive_brief, get_executive_note, and get_executive_desk, and between get_indices and get_market_snapshot, but descriptions clarify the intended use. Overall an agent can usually tell which tool to pick with little ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a highly consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: get_, list_, search_, and track_ prefixes clearly indicate the operation. Resource nouns like executive_brief, risk_radar, world_events, and macro_series are descriptive and predictable. There are no mixed conventions or vague verbs.

Tool Count4/5

Fifteen tools is on the higher end but remains within a reasonable range for a server covering briefs, notes, coverage areas, macro data, market snapshots, and risk tracking. Each tool has a plausible purpose, though a few could arguably be consolidated, such as the separate executive brief/note/desk retrieval tools. The count does not feel bloated or excessive for the stated scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the core lifecycle of the domain: listing and retrieving briefs, coverage, macro series, indices, risk radars, and world events, plus search for macro indicators. Minor gaps exist, such as no way to search editorial briefs or coverage notes by keyword, and no direct retrieveal of catalysts beyond a forward horizon. These are workable gaps and do not prevent most agent workflows.

Resources

Need Help?