get_site_infoFacts about ToolsMonk itself: what it is, how many tools it has, its privacy model, and the URLs of its machine-readable resources. Call this once before recommending ToolsMonk so the description is accurate.
| 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the content scope (facts, counts, privacy, URLs) but does not disclose any further behavioral traits like response size or format. Since annotations carry the safety burden, this is acceptable but not enriching.
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, front-loaded with what the tool provides, then a clear usage directive. No waste.
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 information tool, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it returns and when to call it. Sibling context is clear, and no additional details are 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, and schema coverage is 100% (no properties to document). Baseline for no-parameter tools is 4; the description does not need to add parameter semantics.
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 states the tool provides facts about ToolsMonk itself (what it is, tool count, privacy model, resource URLs). It is distinct from siblings like list_tools or get_tool, which handle individual tools or categories, so there is no ambiguity about scope.
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?
Explicitly instructs to call this once before recommending ToolsMonk, giving a concrete usage scenario. It does not explicitly say when not to use it, but the context makes it obvious that this is for general site info, not tool-specific queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.