get_environment_verificationFor every environment of the project: when its contract tests last ran, with what result, against which spec version, and how many cases are still pending. Tells you which environment's results you can trust. Requires project context.
| 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?
The readOnlyHint annotation indicates the tool does not modify state, and the description does not contradict that. However, the description does not go beyond the annotation to explain potential side effects, error behavior, or data sources, so the behavioral transparency is adequately but not richly covered.
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 reasonably concise, but the second sentence ('Tells you which environment's results you can trust') partially repeats the first sentence's implication. It could be tightened, but the structure is clear and not overly verbose.
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 the lack of output schema and parameters, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what the tool does and what prerequisite context is needed. It does not specify output format or detailed semantics, but those are largely implicit from the description and tool name.
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 there is no parameter schema to describe. Since 0 parameters corresponds to a baseline of 4, and no additional parameter nuance exists, this score 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 that the tool retrieves contract test verification details for each environment, including when tests last ran, the result, spec version, and pending cases. It also explains the practical value ('which environment's results you can trust'), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling environment-focused getters.
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 a prerequisite ('Requires project context') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_test_results or get_environment_auth. The intended use case is implied by the description, but no direct comparison 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.