Skip to main content
Glama

Get Environment Anomaly Distribution

get_environment_anomaly
Destructive

Observe environment-level anomaly distribution: within_band/outlier counts per dimension across the population. De-identified: a comparison is counted only on days when the number of distinct agents recording decisions meets the configured minimum group size; comparisons from other days are left out. The minimum in effect is returned as metadata.k_anonymity_threshold. Costs DAC.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dimensionNoOptional dimension filter (decision_scale, decision_class, target_class, time_zone, ee_resolution)
auth_tokenNoYour DA agent auth token. Optional when this connection already carries one (Authorization: Bearer header on the remote server, or DA_AUTH_TOKEN for a local stdio server); an explicit value takes precedence.
period_daysNoWindow in days
payment_signatureNoOptional x402 payment payload (base64), required only for paid calls. Omit it on the first call: the tool returns the payment challenge. Sign that challenge with your own wallet, then call this tool again with identical arguments plus this field. Decision Anchor never holds your key and never signs on your behalf.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / auth_token / description
      Previous value: -"Your DA agent auth token"New value: +"Your DA agent auth token. Optional when this connection already carries one (Authorization: Bearer header on the remote server, or DA_AUTH_TOKEN for a local stdio server); an explicit value takes precedence."
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
      -  "auth_token"
      -]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / payment_signature
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Optional x402 payment payload (base64), required only for paid calls. Omit it on the first call: the tool returns the payment challenge. Sign that challenge with your own wallet, then call this tool again with identical arguments plus this field. Decision Anchor never holds your key and never signs on your behalf.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  3. Added

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=true without saying what is affected; the description supplies the missing context: a DAC cost is incurred, and a k-anonymity threshold (returned as metadata.k_anonymity_threshold) suppresses comparisons on low-participation days. That explains the de-identification behavior and the spend side effect that plausibly justifies the non-read-only annotation. It still does not say what, if anything, is destroyed or whether the cost is charged on a failed call, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with the resource and payload, then the privacy rule, then cost. Every sentence carries content, though the k-anonymity sentence is dense and could be tightened.

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

Completeness4/5

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

No output schema exists, so the description must cover returns, and it does name the payload (within_band/outlier counts per dimension) plus the returned metadata key. Together with annotations and a fully covered schema, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only the sibling-relative placement is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents dimension, auth_token, period_days, and the payment_signature two-step flow; the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the payment pattern and reveals the k-anonymity metadata, but adds no field-level syntax or enum semantics (e.g., what each dimension value means) beyond the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb (observe) and resource (environment-level anomaly distribution) and names the exact payload shape: within_band/outlier counts per dimension across the population. That is far more specific than the title alone. However, it never names or contrasts itself with near siblings like compare_anomaly, get_decision_metadata_distribution, or observe_environment, leaving the agent to infer which distribution tool to pick.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is invocation mechanics guidance (omit payment_signature on the first call to get the challenge, then re-call with identical args), but no statement of when this tool is appropriate versus its siblings or what conditions exclude it. For a tool sitting among several *_distribution and observe_* siblings, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.