list_models_by_vesa_patternEvery covered TV or monitor whose mounting pattern is the given VESA size, e.g. 200x200 or 400x300, with page URLs. Useful for "which TVs fit my mount".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pattern | Yes | Width x height in mm, e.g. 400x400 |
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 the operation read-only and idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: it returns all matching models, requires an exact VESA-size pattern, and includes page URLs. 'Covered' is slightly vague, but the safety profile is well covered by 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 two sentences with no filler. The scope, examples, return value, and intended use case are all front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.
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 list tool with one well-documented parameter, the description is complete enough: it states the result includes page URLs and gives the use case. The meaning of 'covered' is the only minor gap; everything else an agent needs is present.
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 coverage is 100%, with the pattern parameter already documented as 'Width x height in mm.' The description reinforces this with examples like 200x200, but does not add substantial 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 names a specific operation — listing TVs/monitors by VESA pattern — and includes the output (page URLs). It clearly distinguishes this from search_or_lookup siblings by focusing on mounting-pattern matching.
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 a clear use case: 'which TVs fit my mount.' It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like lookup_tv_mount_specs or search_tv_models, but the context makes the intended scenario understandable.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct query mode: reverse lookup by VESA pattern, exact model specification lookup, and flexible model search. The slight overlap in returned specs is mitigated by clear input differences (model number vs brand/fragment/screen size).
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lowercase snake_case: list_models_by_vesa_pattern, lookup_tv_mount_specs, and search_tv_models. The verbs are semantically distinct and the object naming is uniform.
Three tools is at the lower end of the ideal range, but this is a narrowly scoped reference server and each tool serves a necessary, non-redundant purpose. No filler or overlapping tools are present.
For a read-only factual lookup service, the surface covers the main entry points: search by model/brand/size, exact model specification lookup, and reverse lookup by VESA pattern. There are no obvious dead ends for the domain.