Read and agent-enrich an existing public scan report by id; no new target request or model call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| report_id | Yes |
| 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. The description adds the behavioral trait 'no new target request or model call,' which is not implied by the annotations and is useful context. It does not contradict annotations, and the 'agent-enrich' wording does not imply modification of the report.
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 concise sentence that leads with the action, includes the resource and a key constraint, and has zero filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. The tool is simple (one parameter) and the description covers its core purpose and exclusions. Annotations cover safety traits. It is complete for a read-only, idempotent operation on a public resource, though it does not mention error conditions or prerequisites beyond what is implied.
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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that report_id is the id of an existing public scan report, which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'report_id' field. However, it does not elaborate on format, validation, or error behavior, so it only partially compensates for the missing parameter documentation.
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 clearly states the verb (Read and agent-enrich), the resource (an existing public scan report), and the identifier (by id). It also explicitly states what it does not do (no new target request or model call), which helps distinguish it from potential siblings. The purpose is unambiguous.
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 provides clear context: it is for existing public scan reports only, and explicitly excludes new target requests or model calls. It does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not conditions, but the exclusion is a strong signal. Sibling tools are not compared, so it lacks full guidance.
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 serves a distinct function: scanning new targets, retrieving existing reports, and providing service info. No overlap in purpose, and descriptions clearly differentiate them.
Two tools follow the verb_noun pattern (get_, scan_), but the third is a noun-only name (selection_lab_info), creating a minor inconsistency. Still, all are snake_case and readable.
With only 3 tools, the server is tightly scoped to its core purpose: scanning and retrieving reports. Each tool is necessary and no redundant tools exist.
The server covers the full lifecycle: scan to create a report, retrieve it by id, and get service information. There are no obvious missing operations for this narrow domain.