get_programme_statusWhether the continuous simulation programme is running, how many people are enrolled, how the workspace's security score is distributed, and what it has queued to send next. This is the 'is our security training actually running' question, and it is the one nobody logs in to check.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the informational scope (state, enrollment, score distribution, queue) but not operational details like response format or freshness; compared with the calibration example for get_calls, this warrants a 3.
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?
Two sentences, with the first densely packing the returned data categories and the second adding a plain-language purpose. Efficient, though the second sentence's final clause ('nobody logs in to check') is stylistic rather than functional, keeping it from a 5.
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 read-only, zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description names all main data categories an agent needs to anticipate the response. It could be improved by mentioning whether the data is real-time or cached and any return packaging, but it is not inadequate.
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 no parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description wisely says nothing about inputs.
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?
Description begins with specific verbs and objects: whether the programme is running, number enrolled, security score distribution, and queued next. This clearly distinguishes get_programme_status from sibling tools like get_program_summary, get_setup_status, and get_campaign by focusing on live operational state.
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 explicitly frames the decision this tool answers ('is our security training actually running'), which tells an agent when to select it. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but get_programme_status and get_setup_status both report whether the continuous programme is running, and get_program_summary, get_breakdowns, and get_resilience_trend all expose similar rate metrics. Descriptions help clarify the differences, but an agent could still pick the wrong reporting tool for a given question.
All names use a predictable lowercase snake_case verb_noun style with get_, list_, exclude_, pause_, and explain_. The main inconsistency is the program/programme spelling difference between get_program_summary and get_programme_status, and explain_send is a slightly less conventional noun.
12 tools is a well-scoped size for a phishing-simulation insight and safety-control server. Each tool covers a distinct reporting angle or operational action without feeling padded.
The read and analytics surface is thorough, covering summaries, breakdowns, trends, evidence, setup, and individual explanations. However, the operational side is one-directional: exclude_person and pause_programme have no include or resume counterpart, and there is no campaign or person management tooling, leaving explicit dead ends.