enable_toolsetEnable one or more toolsets for this session so their tools appear in tools/list. Pass a comma-separated list of toolset slugs (see list_toolsets). Sends a tools/list_changed notification; clients that ignore it can still call hidden tools directly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| names | Yes | Comma-separated toolset slugs to enable, e.g. 'testing,mock-server' |
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?
The description says 'Enable one or more toolsets', which is a mutating action, but the annotation readOnlyHint=true indicates the tool is read-only. This directly contradicts the annotation. The note about sending a tools/list_changed notification adds behavioral detail, but the contradiction overrides any credit.
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 concise, consisting of two sentences that directly convey the action, the parameter format, and a relevant side-effect. There is no redundant or extraneous information.
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 essential context: what the tool does, what input it expects, and the side-effect (notification). There is no output schema to explain. Minor missing context includes potential errors or prerequisites (e.g., toolset must exist), but these are not critical for the main use case.
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 schema already fully describes the 'names' parameter as a comma-separated list of toolset slugs. The description merely restates this without adding new meaning (e.g., constraints, defaults, or edge cases). Schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: enabling one or more toolsets for the current session so their tools become visible in tools/list. It also provides the parameter format (comma-separated slugs), making the action unambiguous.
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 mentions that clients can still call hidden tools directly even without enabling, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or list any sibling tools that serve similar purposes. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
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 tools are mostly distinct with clear descriptions. Some pairs like get_header_policies vs get_resolved_headers or get_environment_verification vs get_monitoring_sync_status could be slightly confusing, but the descriptions clarify scope and purpose.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, create_, update_, manage_, etc.). Even the few bare verbs like 'search' and 'set_context' are consistent with the naming scheme.
With 165 tools, the server is extremely heavy. This far exceeds the 'too many' threshold of 25+, making it difficult for an agent to navigate and select the right tool efficiently.
The tool surface covers a very broad API lifecycle domain: specs, environments, test cases, monitors, mock servers, security, governance, documentation, and team management. Read and write operations are present across most areas, with no obvious missing core functionality.