sparkvibe.get_startedWorks WITHOUT a credential. Returns the preferred OAuth 2.1 connection flow, the Pro plan price and build-credit allowance, the agent-initiated checkout flow, the manual-key fallback, and a ready-to-relay message for your user. Call this when another tool returned UNAUTHORIZED / FEATURE_LOCKED or you need setup instructions.
| 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 establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations: it works without credentials, returns a ready-to-relay user message, and is the fallback for auth-related errors. This gives the agent a practical understanding of when and how the tool behaves.
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 sentences with no filler. The no-credential constraint is front-loaded, the returned content is listed compactly, and the trigger conditions are given at the end. Every sentence earns its place and the length is proportionate to the information an agent needs.
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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no sibling tools, the description is fully self-sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool returns, when to invoke it, and that no credential is needed. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.
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, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The description adds the relevant contextual note that no credential is required, which is the only implicit input an agent might otherwise expect. Baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool is appropriate.
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 a specific verb ('Returns') and a clear resource: access/setup information for SparkVibeAI. It enumerates the exact content returned (OAuth flow, pricing, checkout flow, fallback, relay message), making the tool's purpose unmistakable even though no sibling tools exist to differentiate from.
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 states when to call the tool: 'Call this when another tool returned UNAUTHORIZED / FEATURE_LOCKED or you need setup instructions.' It also clarifies that no credential is needed, which prevents an agent from attempting to pass one or assuming auth is required.
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.
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of selecting between overlapping tools. The single tool's purpose is clearly described as an onboarding/setup helper.
The tool name 'sparkvibe.get_started' follows a clear verb_noun pattern with a consistent namespace prefix. Since it is the only tool, there are no mixed conventions or naming contradictions.
A server branded as a 'Spec Committee' with only one informational tool is extremely thin. The tool itself is useful but does not warrant an entire server, making the count too few for the apparent scope.
The tool surface is severely incomplete for a specification-focused server. It only provides setup instructions and contains no tools for accessing, creating, modifying, or managing actual specifications, leaving agents with a dead end after the initial call.