get_agent_readinessReturns turva.dev's own agent-readiness score from an independent public scanner (isitagentready.com), including category sub-scores, with the measurement date and verification links. Use this when a user asks how turva.dev scores, whether its claims are verifiable, or what proof backs the audit service. Read-only: returns static JSON and changes nothing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that it returns static JSON and changes nothing, plus the return includes measurement date and verification links, enriching the annotation-only picture.
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, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place by providing purpose, use cases, and behavior without filler.
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 tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned (score, sub-scores, date, links), when to use it, and its non-mutating nature. No important contextual gap remains.
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 the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed.
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 returns turva.dev's agent-readiness score from an independent public scanner, including sub-scores and verification links. This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from siblings that cover principles, security evidence, and services.
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?
Explicit use cases are provided: 'when a user asks how turva.dev scores, whether its claims are verifiable, or what proof backs the audit service.' It does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, but the context is clear.
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 returns a distinct category of information: readiness score, principles, security evidence, and services. Even though readiness and security evidence both relate to verification, their descriptions clearly separate agent-readiness scanning from web-security scanning.
All tools follow a consistent get_<noun> pattern with clear, descriptive nouns: readiness, principles, security_evidence, services. No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
Four tools is on the lower end but appropriate for a read-only informational server about a single company. Each tool has its own scope and none feel redundant.
The server covers the main self-disclosure surface: readiness, security evidence, principles, and service catalog. A contact or get_started tool might be a minor addition, but the core informational purpose is satisfied.