Select when the user asks WHAT LOCAL LICENSING-POLICY DIMENSIONS the service can evaluate for an authority, including cumulative-impact or other local-policy constraints. Capability coverage only; do not use for the actual premises compliance/blocker decision.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| authority | No | ||
| provided_facts | No |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Capability coverage only', which indicates informational scope, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what the response contains, whether side effects occur, or any error/limit behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.
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 two sentences with no filler. The trigger condition is front-loaded, and the exclusion is placed in the second sentence. The all-caps 'WHAT' is slightly noisy but does not undermine clarity or conciseness.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain what a capability-coverage answer looks like, but it does not. The 'provided_facts' parameter is also left undefined, so an agent cannot confidently construct a correct call. The purpose is clear, but the operational details are incomplete.
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%, yet the description does not explain either parameter. 'authority' is weakly implied by 'for an authority', but its format and optional behavior are not stated, and 'provided_facts' is completely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the total lack of schema descriptions.
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 tool's purpose: reporting which local licensing-policy dimensions the service can evaluate for an authority, including cumulative-impact constraints. The 'Capability coverage only' clause further distinguishes it from actual compliance/blocker decision tools, making the resource and scope 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 first sentence gives an explicit trigger: use this when the user asks WHAT local licensing-policy dimensions can be evaluated. The second sentence gives an explicit when-not: do not use it for the actual premises compliance/blocker decision. It lacks named sibling alternatives, but the exclusion is clear enough to prevent misuse.
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 has a distinct role, and the descriptions are very explicit about routing, especially between licensing_source_status and source_fingerprint_status. However, several names are easy to confuse at a glance (premises_licence_info vs premises_licence_preflight, licensing_source_status vs source_fingerprint_status, preflight_readiness vs premises_licence_preflight), so an agent might need to read carefully.
All names use clear lowercase snake_case, but the set mixes verb-led names (compare_licensing_requirements, list_supported_authorities) with noun-led descriptive names (licensing_source_status, local_policy_capabilities, premises_licence_preflight). This is readable but not a consistent verb_noun convention.
Eight tools is well-scoped for a premises-licensing preflight service, covering the decision itself, readiness, comparison, capabilities, source health, fingerprint diagnostics, supported authorities, and pricing/info. No tool is redundant, and the set does not feel bloated.
The tool surface covers the full preflight workflow: input-readiness check, actual compliance decision, cross-authority comparison, local-policy capability awareness, source status/fingerprint diagnostics, supported-authority lookup, and pricing/service discovery. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated domain.