Skip to main content
Glama

explain_silence

Read-onlyIdempotent

Explain why a watched trip has produced no updates.

Use this tool when the user asks why they have not heard anything about
a watched trip. Returns {recheck_count, last_checked} (proof the trip
was actively monitored),
{suppressed:[{what, domain, country, score, floor, reason}]} (what we saw
for your destinations and dropped below the disclosed relevance floor —
e.g. a deep quake at modelled felt-intensity 3.39 < floor 4.0),
{confidence_during_window} (same recency input as assess_trip), and
{blind_spots:[{domain, country, note}]} — domains/countries we do NOT
monitor live, so silence there is NOT a guarantee (e.g. aviation-IT blind
spot => silence does not cover flights). Also {coverage_classes:[{class,
domain, label, monitored_in, not_monitored_in, via, statement}]} — per KIND
of disruption (on-track incidents and local rail operations, individual
flight delays, local road closures, country-level weather warnings…) where
it is observable to us and where NO configured source watches it, so "your
train was stopped by an incident only a local blog reported" is explainable
— plus {sources_consulted, sources_pending} per destination.
`since` optionally scopes the recheck window. Id is regex-validated;
unknown -> {"error": "not_found"}, malformed -> {"error": "invalid_trip_id"}.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sinceNo
trip_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: full return-field semantics including the disclosed relevance floor, blind spots where silence is explicitly NOT a guarantee, and error behavior for unknown vs malformed ids. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose and trigger are front-loaded and waste nothing, but the remainder is a dense run-on enumerating return fields with inline brace notation and parentheticals nested three levels deep. Since no output schema exists the content is justified, yet the structure is hard to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description takes on the full burden of describing returns and does so across all four response sections plus per-destination source lists. Combined with the error cases and the `since` scoping note, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load — it explains that `since` "optionally scopes the recheck window" and that trip_id is regex-validated with distinct not_found and invalid_trip_id errors. It stops short of giving the actual regex or the timestamp format for `since`, so a 4 rather than a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and object ("Explain why a watched trip has produced no updates") that is unmistakably distinct from siblings like get_trip_updates_since (which returns updates) and assess_trip (which assesses risk). An agent can route on the first sentence alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit trigger: "Use this tool when the user asks why they have not heard anything about a watched trip." It also clarifies the relationship to assess_trip (same recency input), but never states when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer when the user wants actual updates rather than silence.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources