harness_detailReturn manifest, trust signals, example and file list for one harness.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Harness slug, for example deep-market-researcher. | |
| owner | No | harnesses |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| code | Yes | ||
| status | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "code": {
+ "const": "OK",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "const": true,
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "maximum": 599,
+ "minimum": 100,
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "ok",
+ "code",
+ "status"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only and safe behavior. The description adds context about returned components (manifest, trust signals, etc.), which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions found.
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?
A single, efficient sentence with no unnecessary words. All information 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?
The output schema exists, so return structure is documented. The description covers key returned components. Annotations handle safety. It is complete enough for a read-only detail 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?
Schema description coverage is 50% (only 'name' has a description). The tool description mentions 'for one harness' implying the name parameter identifies the harness, but does not add meaning for 'owner'. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given partial coverage and minimal extra context.
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 the verb 'Return' and the specific resources: manifest, trust signals, example, and file list for one harness. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_harnesses' which handle multiple harnesses.
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 usage for retrieving details of a single harness by name, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_harnesses' or 'fetch'. No exclusion criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among search variants (search, search_resources, search_harnesses) and between fetch and resource_detail, which could cause confusion.
Naming mostly follows a verb_noun pattern, but there are inconsistencies such as 'publish_markdown_to_harness' being longer and 'resource_use_instructions' having a different structure.
12 tools is appropriate for a registry server, covering search, fetch, publish, and pull operations without being overwhelming.
The tool set covers core operations (search, fetch, publish, pull) but lacks update and delete functionalities, which are minor gaps for a registry.