Get a project's resource overview (counts grouped by resource type and status).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | CatchAll API key. Optional if provided via x-api-key header or CATCHALL_API_KEY env var. | |
| project_id | Yes | The project ID to summarize. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return type (counts grouped by resource type and status), but does not mention that it is a read-only operation, auth requirements (api_key optional via header or env), rate limits, or error behavior. Adequate but not thorough.
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, clear sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words.
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?
The tool is simple (2 parameters, output schema exists). The description covers the core functionality. It could briefly mention that the api_key parameter is optional, but this is not critical given the schema. Overall complete for a read-only summary tool.
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?
Input schema coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The description does not add additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score 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 specifies 'Get a project's resource overview (counts grouped by resource type and status)', which is a specific verb-resource combination. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_project' (likely project details) and 'list_project_resources' (likely list without counts).
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 implies the tool is for obtaining a summary, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., get_project for project settings, list_project_resources for raw list). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.