What else serves the same occupation? Traverses on SOC only — a certification sharing solely an instructional program (CIP) is not related (contract § 4).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The certification id to relate from | |
| limit | No | Optional maximum number of related certifications |
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 explicitly reveals the traversal logic (SOC only) and the key exclusion rule (CIP-only is not related), citing contract § 4. It does not describe output shape or side effects, but the core relational behavior is transparent.
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 with no filler. The purpose question is front-loaded, and the crucial exception is stated immediately after, making the behavior easy to parse.
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 relationship lookup with two parameters, the description covers the important matching logic, the exclusion rule, and the contractual basis. There is no output schema, but the tool's expected output is reasonably inferable from its name and the description. Minor gaps like default limit behavior are not addressed, but the description is largely complete.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds conceptual context about what 'related' means, but it does not add material parameter-level details beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 frames the tool as returning certifications that serve the same occupation, and the SOC-only traversal rule distinguishes it from program-based lookup tools. It does not state an explicit imperative verb like 'find' or 'list', but the question 'What else serves the same occupation?' conveys the action and resource well.
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 an exclusion criterion: certifications that only share an instructional program (CIP) are not related, which implies this tool is for occupation-based relations rather than program-based ones. It does not explicitly name the alternative sibling tools, but the context makes the intended use clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.