List your decision records. See the trajectory you have built so far.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | End date (ISO 8601) | |
| from | No | Start date (ISO 8601) | |
| limit | No | Max results | |
| offset | No | Offset for pagination | |
| auth_token | Yes | Your DA agent auth token |
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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states 'list' (read-only) but fails to mention pagination, filtering behavior, or error conditions for auth_token. The presence of limit/offset params in the schema is not reflected in the description.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the key action. The second sentence adds some motivational context but is not essential. Overall well-sized.
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?
With 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return format, pagination behavior, or how 'your' records are scoped. The agent would lack context for correct invocation.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions in the schema already provide.
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 states 'List your decision records' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_decision, which retrieves a single record; the differentiation is implied but not stated.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_decision, confirm_decision). There are no prerequisites or context for when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.