What certifications serve this occupation? SOC-keyed lookup (dashed SOC accepted with or without the O*NET .00 suffix).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| soc | Yes | SOC code, e.g. 13-2061 or 13-2061.00 |
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 carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that input is a dashed SOC code with optional O*NET .00 suffix, which is useful input-format behavior. However, it does not describe the output shape, error handling, or whether unknown occupations return empty results, leaving some ambiguity.
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, front-loaded sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose and includes the key input constraint. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 simple one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what the tool returns (certifications for an occupation), identifies the key, and specifies accepted input formats. It could slightly improve by clarifying the return structure, but the core context is sufficient.
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 schema already documents the soc parameter with examples. The description reinforces the accepted formats but adds little meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states the tool's purpose as a lookup of certifications for a given occupation, with a clear resource (certifications) and key (SOC). It differentiates from siblings like certifications_for_program and occupations_for_certification by specifying the SOC-keyed nature of the lookup.
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 indicates this tool is for occupation-based certification lookups keyed by SOC code, and specifies accepted input formats. It does not explicitly mention when to use sibling tools, but the SOC-keyed framing and sibling names make the appropriate context reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.