Find work-kit previews. These kits are awaiting evaluation and cannot be purchased. Query using general task words, never private scenarios.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| domain | No | ||
| offset | No |
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, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that these kits are non-purchasable previews and warns against private-scenario queries, which are meaningful constraints. It does not cover return format, pagination, rate limits, or whether any side effects exist, leaving some gaps.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then adding context and a usage rule. Every sentence contributes value; there is no redundant phrasing or 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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description gives enough to understand the tool's purpose and a key query constraint, but leaves parameter semantics, result shape, and pagination unspecified. It is a minimally adequate description for a simple search tool, but not fully complete.
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 0%, and the description only vaguely maps to the q parameter via 'Query using general task words'. It provides no explanations for limit, domain, or offset, and does not clarify parameter formats or expected values beyond schema constraints.
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 'Find work-kit previews', a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the tool's function. The phrase 'awaiting evaluation and cannot be purchased' adds distinguishing context, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools.
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?
Provides clear usage context: the kits are awaiting evaluation and cannot be purchased, so the tool is for preview/exploration. It also gives an explicit query rule—'use general task words, never private scenarios'—which functions as a when-not instruction. However, it does not mention alternative sibling tools or conditions for choosing them over this one.
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 resource: catalog lists available items, kit_catalog previews unevaluated kits, method reads free methods, pack_offer returns payable URLs, and research_feedback is the only write action. However, catalog vs kit_catalog and the preview-style tools (kit_catalog, research_preview) have close enough names/functions to cause occasional misselection.
All tool names follow the same lowercase snake_case noun-phrase convention, such as catalog, kit_catalog, pack_offer, and research_preview. There is no mixing of styles or inconsistent verb usage.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a knowledge-commons server covering catalogs, free content, paid offers, previews, samples, and feedback. Each tool has a clear purpose and none feel redundant.
Core workflows are covered: browse catalogs, read free methods, obtain payable pack URLs, preview research, fetch a sample pack, and submit feedback. There is no explicit decision-pack content reader or purchase tool, but pack_offer intentionally stops at the payable URL, suggesting a deliberate boundary rather than a dead end.