list_goalsFinancial goals — target vs current funding, progress, gap and status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| household_id | No | ||
| include_inactive | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 disclose readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds some context about the returned content but does not describe any additional behavioral traits such as scoping rules, pagination, or what happens when household_id is omitted. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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 a single, compact line that leads with the resource and then lists the relevant data attributes. There is no wasted wording, and every part contributes to understanding what the tool returns.
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?
The presence of an output schema covers return values, and annotations cover safety and idempotency. However, the lack of parameter semantics and any usage context leaves gaps: an agent may not know whether to supply household_id or how to interpret include_inactive. Overall, the description is adequate for a simple list tool but not fully complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention household_id or include_inactive at all. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, and both are optional, but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation, leaving the agent without meaningful guidance on how to pass these parameters.
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 the resource as financial goals and enumerates the key data points returned: target vs current funding, progress, gap, and status. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_accounts and list_documents, though the verb 'list' is only supplied by the tool name and title rather than the description itself.
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 implies the tool is for viewing financial goals and their funding status, which gives some contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or filtering conditions such as household_id or include_inactive.
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 are distinct, but several pairs overlap in purpose: get_market_data and list_watchlist both return watchlist prices/signals, and the four 'brief' tools have fuzzy boundaries. Descriptions help, but an agent could easily select the wrong one without deeper context.
The dominant verb_noun pattern (get_* for details, list_* for collections) is clear and consistent in style. There are minor deviations like lookup_index_by_brand and run_technical_analysis, and several plural collections use get_, but these remain readable and mostly predictable.
39 tools is well past the 25+ threshold and represents a heavy surface for an agent to navigate. The broad wealth domain explains some of the count, but many granular getters could be consolidated or curated.
The set covers the advertised wealth surface well—portfolio, risk, credit, real assets, markets, geopolitics, watchlist, goals, family, and documents—but it is read-only and lacks obvious navigation endpoints like list_portfolios or detail views for goals/alerts. Agents can retrieve most data, but not all lifecycle operations or entity enumerations are present.