call_toolValidate and call one enabled curated tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | compact | |
| tool | Yes | ||
| service | Yes | ||
| arguments | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. It mentions 'validate and call' but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether the target tool may modify data), error handling, or any validation failure behavior. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.
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, focused sentence with no redundant information. It is compact and easy to parse, effectively covering the core functionality without unnecessary verbosity.
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?
The tool appears to be a generic caller for other services, but the description does not explain what output it returns, how 'mode' affects execution, or how it relates to the sibling tools beyond 'calling' them. Given the complexity of a meta-tool, this description is too sparse for an agent to fully understand its role.
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?
With zero schema coverage, the parameter names (mode, tool, service, arguments) are the only hints. The description provides no additional explanation of their meaning, expected values, or relationships. For a meta-tool, this is critically insufficient for correct parameter selection.
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: to validate and call an enabled curated tool. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are specific domain-specific actions (e.g., searching laws, fetching weather alerts).
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 usage as a general dispatcher for other tools, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over calling a specific tool directly or mention alternatives. The phrase 'enabled curated tool' hints at a selection mechanism but lacks explicit 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.
Every tool has a unique purpose, and the descriptions are detailed enough to clearly distinguish between search, list, get, and specific operations across domains. No two tools overlap in function.
Domain tools follow a consistent '<domain>_<verb>_<noun>' pattern, but gateway-level tools like 'call_tool', 'find_capability', 'inspect_tool', 'search_services', and 'status' lack the prefix, introducing a minor inconsistency. Overall still readable and predictable.
With 35 tools, the count exceeds the typical 3–15 range, but this is a gateway aggregating multiple distinct domains (holidays, laws, opendata, recalls, etc.), making the larger set justified. The count feels appropriate for the server's purpose.
Each domain offers a full set of operations: search, list, get, and domain-specific actions (like count_business_days or get_document_changes). Gateway meta-tools cover discovery, inspection, and invocation, leaving no obvious gaps.