Broad academic cross-reference by instructional program (CIP). A deliberately broader, lower-precision question than an occupation lookup — never its peer (contract § 4).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cip | Yes | Dotted CIP code, e.g. 52.0201 |
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 provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a meaningful caveat that results are deliberately broader and lower-precision, and that the tool is not a peer to occupation lookup. It does not describe return shape, pagination, or side effects, but as a read-style lookup the precision caveat is a useful behavioral signal.
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 sentences, front-loading the CIP basis before the occupation-lookup contrast. The 'contract § 4' reference is cryptic but does not add much bulk; overall the description is economical and scannable.
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 one-parameter, no-output-schema lookup, the description selects and routes the agent reasonably well. However, it omits the explicit return type and relies on a contract reference the agent may not have access to, leaving a modest completeness gap.
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 schema already documents `cip` with a format example and has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates CIP as 'instructional program' and adds no additional format, syntax, or constraint details beyond the schema.
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?
Identifies the core operation as a cross-reference keyed to instructional program (CIP), which is a specific resource. It also distinguishes from occupation lookups, helping an agent separate it from `certifications_for_occupation`. However, it never explicitly states that it returns certifications for the program, relying partly on the tool name.
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?
States the intended case is broad academic/program-based reference and explicitly warns not to treat it as an occupation lookup. It does not name the sibling tool or list concrete when-not-to-use cases beyond the occupation contrast, but that contrast is the key routing decision for this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.