Dry-run a published tool: performs the real call but records no calls row and echoes the rendered request back with secrets redacted, for debugging a spec.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| tenant_key | No | The key `signup` returned. Required only when this connection carries no Authorization: Bearer header -- when both are present, the header wins. |
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 provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does it well: it states that a real call is performed, that no calls row is recorded, that the request is echoed, and that secrets are redacted. This is unusually explicit about side effects and output for a short description.
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?
A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by behavioral qualifiers. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or repetition.
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?
The description covers the tool's side-effect profile and return behavior ("echoes the rendered request back"), which is substantial given there is no output schema. It is slightly incomplete only because parameter semantics for the two required fields are not spelled out and error behavior is unstated.
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 description coverage is only 33%, and the description does not compensate: it never explicitly explains what `name` should contain or how `args` should be structured. The meaning of `args` as the rendered request payload is only weakly implied.
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 opens with a specific verb ("Dry-run") and resource ("a published tool"), then clarifies what makes this distinct: it performs the real call but records no calls row and echoes the rendered request back. This clearly differentiates it from execution siblings like host.tool_call and host.tool_run.
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 phrase "for debugging a spec" provides a clear when-to-use context, and the dry-run versus real-call contrast implies this is a diagnostic alternative to normal execution. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state exclusions, so it stops just short of full guidance.
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.
Most tools target a clearly distinct resource or lifecycle stage, with billing, secret, and tool-publishing groups nicely separated. The main ambiguity is among host.tool_call, host.tool_test, and host.tool_run, which all invoke a published tool in slightly different modes; the descriptions clarify this, but the names alone could mislead an agent.
The namespace prefixes billing.* and host.* provide a consistent organizational pattern, and host.tool_* tools use a predictable resource-action style. Deviations like signup, host.quickstart, host.usage, and host.whoami break the pattern, but they are few and still readable.
At 17 tools, the server is slightly over the typical well-scoped 3-15 range, but the breadth is justified by the multi-tenant hosting domain: signup, billing, tool lifecycle, secrets, debugging, and usage observability each need dedicated tools. Every tool has a plausible role, so the count feels reasonable rather than bloated.
The tool lifecycle is well covered with publish, list, test, run, call, logs, and remove, and billing/usage/signup are present. Notable gaps remain, though: secret_set has no corresponding secret_delete, there is no tenant update/delete operation, and host.registry_publish references admin.tenant_verify_namespace, which is not exposed in this tool set.