Search MethodologyCritique rows by composite filter (subject_id, subject_type, critique_type, severity). All filters AND together; any subset of the four is valid. Read-only (curator-policy D4).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| severity | No | ||
| subject_id | No | ||
| subject_type | No | ||
| critique_type | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| total | Yes | ||
| matches | 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the AND-combination semantics and the 'curator-policy D4' read-only context, which are not present in the schema or annotations.
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 compact sentences front-load the core operation and filter semantics. There is no wasted text; every clause adds useful information.
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 search tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the essential filter behavior, combination rules, and read-only nature. The only notable gap is the absence of any mention of the limit parameter or differentiation from similar lookup/search tools, but the definition remains largely adequate.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the four filter parameters and their combination logic, but does not address the limit parameter or the meaning/format of subject_id. Enums cover three parameters' values, but the description still leaves some parameter semantics implicit.
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 a specific action (Search) and resource (MethodologyCritique rows), and enumerates the filter dimensions. It clearly identifies what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling lookup tool.
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 concrete usage rules: all filters AND together and any subset of the four is valid. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose search over the sibling critiques.lookup or other search tools, leaving selection mostly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.