get_executive_deskThe longer-form desk read for today — analysis and research notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 this read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description carries little safety burden. It adds some useful context—'for today' signals a dated, changing result—but it doesn't disclose anything beyond that temporal framing.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the key differentiator ('longer-form') and finished with content type. No wasted words or repetition of schema details.
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 tool with an output schema and safety annotations, very little is needed to invoke it. The main gap is routing among the closely named siblings get_executive_brief and get_executive_note, which is only hinted at by 'longer-form' rather than stated.
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, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The 100% schema coverage plus 0-parameter count make the baseline 4 appropriate; no description-level parameter guidance is needed.
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 names a specific resource ('the desk read') with a clear retrieval verb and adds the useful qualifier 'longer-form,' which roughly separates it from the executive brief/note siblings. It doesn't explicitly define what a 'desk read' is or name the sibling it is not, so it falls just short of full clarity.
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 phrase 'longer-form desk read for today' implies this is the in-depth daily analysis option, but the description never states when to prefer it over get_executive_brief or get_executive_note. Usage context is implied rather than explicit, with no alternatives or exclusions mentioned.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.