capabilitiesMap of this public MCP + the shipped local vigisky-sentinel (23 typed tools, stdio/127.0.0.1).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| citations | Yes | ||
| provenance | Yes | ||
| this_server | No | ||
| local_server | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / properties / doctrineRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / properties / local_serverAdded value: +{
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / properties / provenance / properties / neverAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / this_serverAdded value: +{
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "citations",
+ "provenance"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully specified. The description adds value by naming 'public MCP' and 'local vigisky-sentinel', indicating scope (public vs local) and transport (stdio/127.0.0.1). This is beyond what annotations provide, earning a 4.
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 a single sentence of 17 words. It is front-loaded with 'Map of this MCP', immediately conveying purpose. Every phrase adds context: public vs local, tool count (23), transport method. No wasted words.
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 zero parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema (not shown but exists), the description completes the picture by specifying scope and transport. For a discovery/listing tool, this is 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?
There are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the tool. The description does not need to add parameter meaning. Baseline 4 is appropriate given zero params and complete schema coverage; the description earns a 5 because no additional parameter info 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 says 'Map of this public MCP + the shipped local vigisky-sentinel (23 typed tools, stdio/127.0.0.1)', which clearly indicates it provides an overview or listing of tools. The verb 'Map' implies discovery or cataloging, and it distinguishes itself from 19 sibling tools by not being a domain-specific function.
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 implies this tool is for exploring available tools, particularly the public MCP and a local set. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, but with zero parameters and a read-only idempotent nature, usage context is obvious. It provides a specific number (23 typed tools) and location (stdio/127.0.0.1), which helps in deciding relevance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.