get_servicesReturn a read-only professional-context summary for established services clients. It does not state current availability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| markdown | Yes | ||
| canonicalUrl | Yes | ||
| lastReviewed | Yes | ||
| contentStatus | Yes | ||
| profileVersion | Yes | ||
| draftPreparedAt | 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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by explicitly stating that the result does not include current availability, which prevents the agent from assuming availability data is present.
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 short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the key limitation about availability is stated directly. 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?
Given the zero-parameter schema, the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, the description is mostly complete. The phrase 'established services clients' could be more explicit about qualification, but this is a minor ambiguity and not essential for invoking the tool correctly.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description does not need to explain parameters, and 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 clearly states a specific action and resource: returning a read-only professional-context summary for established services clients. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like assess_infoaddict_engagement_fit or get_site_guide, but the scope and the 'does not state current availability' caveat make the core purpose reasonably distinct.
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 gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate: for established services clients needing a professional-context summary. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, but the 'read-only' and 'does not state current availability' phrasing signals boundaries that help an agent decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.