list_management_toolsList the Get2Great-lane manager-facing tools (strategy frameworks + management/HR practice). Metadata only — execution endpoints are auth-gated elsewhere.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| tools | Yes | ||
| contract | 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating 'Metadata only' and explaining that execution endpoints are auth-gated elsewhere, which clarifies scope and user expectations beyond the annotations.
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 two concise sentences, front-loads the core action and resource, and adds only one clarifying clause about metadata/auth. Every sentence earns its place.
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 read-only listing tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description fully conveys what the tool returns, what scope it covers, and where execution happens. Nothing critical is missing.
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 and the schema coverage is effectively 100% with an empty properties object. There is nothing for the description to add about parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies.
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 verb (List), a clear resource (Get2Great-lane manager-facing tools), and scopes it with examples (strategy frameworks + management/HR practice). It also distinguishes this tool from sibling magazine/feed tools by targeting management tool metadata rather than articles or feeds.
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 clearly states that this returns metadata only and that execution endpoints are auth-gated elsewhere, so an agent knows not to use this tool for executing tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative for execution, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.