List canonical theoretical models (JD-R, COR, SDT, AET, JCM, Goal-Setting, Equity, Two-Factor, etc.). Sorted by foundational publication year. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| total | 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 mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only'. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying the canonical subset and the sort order by foundational publication year. It does not discuss pagination behavior, but this is a minor gap given the 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?
The description is only three short sentences, each earning its place: the scope with examples, the sort order, and the read-only nature. There is no filler or redundant elaboration.
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 read-only listing tool with two optional pagination parameters and an output schema, the description captures the essential scope, the canonical examples, the ordering, and the safety profile. Nothing critical is missing for correct selection and invocation.
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 for the two parameters, but it never mentions limit or offset. The parameter names and constraints are fairly self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic meaning 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List canonical theoretical models', and reinforces the scope with concrete examples (JD-R, COR, SDT, AET, JCM, etc.). It also notes the sort order, making this clearly distinct from sibling lookup/search tools.
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 no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not say 'use lookup for a specific model' or 'use search when filtering by criteria'; the only usage signal is the verb 'list', which must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.