get_access_manifestWhat THIS connection can call right now: tools callable without any purchase, tools that need an access right, the robots you already hold, and the ones that can be unlocked. Free for everyone, no key and no account. Call it FIRST: it removes the need to discover your own access rights by making calls that will be refused.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: no purchase, no key/account required, and that the tool reveals access rights without causing failures. No contradiction with 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 three sentences, each carrying useful information: what the manifest contains, that it requires no credentials, and the recommended invocation order. Slightly verbose in the first sentence, but every clause contributes to usage clarity.
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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to call it, and what preconditions exist. No other input or behavioral details are needed for correct 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?
The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed; it correctly notes no key/account is required, which relates to invocation prerequisites.
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 identifies the tool as returning an access manifest for the current connection: it lists callable tools, tools requiring access rights, and robots held or unlockable. This is distinct from all sibling tools, which are all domain-specific get/list/compare operations.
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 explicitly instructs agents to call this tool FIRST, explaining that it avoids discovering access rights through refused calls. It also clarifies universal availability ('Free for everyone, no key and no account'), making the invocation context unambiguous.
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.
The layer prefixes and action verbs make most tools clearly distinct, but the three list_robots variants return the same catalogue and the three get_robot variants share identical commercial fields, creating real selection ambiguity. The descriptive warnings like 'call one, not three' help but do not fully resolve the overlap.
All 27 tools follow a uniform <layer>_<action>_<object> snake_case pattern with consistent verbs: get, list, compare. There are no mixed naming conventions or stylistic deviations.
27 tools is above the comfortable range and is inflated by triplication: list_robots, get_robot, compare_robots, list_signals, and system_status are repeated across layers with only minor differences. A layer parameter could consolidate a large portion of the surface without losing functionality.
As a read-only intelligence platform, the set covers catalogue listing, comparison, robot profiles, BOM details, block analysis, dependency analysis, signals, and system health across hardware, mechanical, and software layers. The main gap is the lack of a consolidated multi-layer robot view, though agents can compose one from the three get_robot variants.