seneca_list_snapshotsList immutable catalog snapshots for one source, current first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | Cursor from next_cursor | |
| fields | No | ||
| source_code | No | Source code, such as seneca |
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 indicates safe read-only behavior. Description adds 'immutable' and result ordering but does not disclose pagination details or other side effects beyond what the annotation covers.
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?
Single, concise sentence with no redundant wording. Clearly states purpose and key attributes without fluff.
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?
Adequate for a simple list operation, but lacks details on default fields, pagination behavior, and how 'current first' is determined. The absence of an output schema is not overly problematic but could benefit from a note.
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?
Only cursor and source_code have descriptions; limit and fields lack explanations in the schema. The description's 'for one source' hints at source_code but does not clarify fields or limit semantics.
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?
Clear verb 'List' with specific resource 'immutable catalog snapshots' and scope 'for one source' distinguishes it from sibling search/list tools. The ordering 'current first' adds specificity.
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?
Implies use when listing snapshots for a particular source, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like seneca_list_sources or search variants. No 'when to use' or alternative guidance given.
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.