Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Antwork

by io.antwork
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

get_more_tools

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check for additional tools whenever your task might benefit from specialized capabilities - even if existing tools could work as a fallback.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "context": "<context>"
    },
    "name": "get_more_tools"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contextYesA description of your goal and what kind of tool would help accomplish it.
llm_modelNoThe model identifier of the calling assistant, or "unknown". Used for product analytics only.
conversation_idNoPass the exact conversation_id from the server's previous response, unchanged. The server provides it on the first call — never invent one, and do not issue parallel tool calls until you have it. Keep passing the same conversation_id for the rest of the conversation, including after later user messages or on a different task; do not reset it when the user starts a new request.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description's help. The description adds only an implicit signal that checking is cheap and worth doing proactively; it says nothing about what the call returns, how the discovered tools become available, or that the server maintains conversation state. Adequate given rich annotations, but no meaningful behavioral depth.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with the trigger first and the fallback clarification second, and no filler. It is arguably over-terse for a meta-tool, but nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness3/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what a successful call produces and what to do with the result, and it does not say. The stateful conversation_id protocol is documented in the schema rather than the description, so the critical constraint is technically present but not surfaced at selection time.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and all three parameters carry their own detailed descriptions, including the unusual statefulness of conversation_id, so the schema does all the semantic work. The description supplies no parameter guidance at all; baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific action ('Check for additional tools') and a trigger condition, so an agent can tell this is a tool-discovery/lookup capability rather than a social-media operation like every sibling in the list. It stops short of saying what a 'check' actually yields (a list of candidate tools? nothing?), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It gives a clear when-to-use rule ('whenever your task might benefit from specialized capabilities') and explicitly lowers the bar with 'even if existing tools could work as a fallback', which counteracts the natural bias to only call it when stuck. There are no competing siblings to name and no when-not guidance, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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

All Antwork toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources