recalls_get_recallOne recall by the id search_recalls returned, with the source's advice text; recall is null when absent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as_of | No | ||
| country | No | Only CA is supported | |
| recall_id | Yes | ||
| snapshot_id | No | ||
| subdivision | No | Not supported by this source |
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?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only nature. The description adds useful behavior by stating 'recall is null when absent,' but lacks details on error handling or other edge cases.
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 short but poorly structured and grammatically awkward ('One recall by the id search_recalls returned'). This reduces clarity despite its brevity.
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 simple get operation, the description provides minimal context. It mentions null behavior but omits information about response structure, potential errors, or the meaning of parameters. The lack of an output schema makes this more critical.
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 only 40% (2 of 5 parameters described), and the tool description does not compensate by explaining any parameter meanings. recall_id, as_of, and snapshot_id remain ambiguous.
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 indicates retrieving a single recall by its ID, distinguishing it from search and list operations. It mentions the source's advice text, giving a specific purpose.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like recalls_search_recalls or recalls_list_categories. The phrasing 'by the id search_recalls returned' is unclear and provides no direct comparison.
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.