The motion atoms + history primitives pre-joined into one
bounded, compact call -- dual-metered via max_age. Cold returns
{job_id, status: "crawling"}, same as the REST route.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_age | No | ||
| company_id | Yes | ||
| plane_api_key | No | ||
| idempotency_key | No |
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, the description must provide behavioral details. It only hints at a 'cold' state and dual-metering via max_age without explanation. Missing side effects, permissions, or life cycle details.
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 short but not well-structured. It uses technical jargon without definition and does not front-load a clear purpose. Every sentence is cryptic rather than informative.
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?
Given 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 0% param description coverage, the description fails to provide basic context. It does not explain inputs, outputs (except cold start), or behavior, making it nearly useless.
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?
The description only mentions max_age in passing without explaining its purpose or effect. The other three parameters (company_id, plane_api_key, idempotency_key) are not mentioned at all. Schema has 0% description coverage, so description adds little to no value.
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 uses unclear jargon ('motion atoms', 'history primitives') and does not explicitly state what the tool does. The verb is implied but not clear. It mentions returning a job_id and status, but the overall purpose is vague.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or contrast with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.