Inspect the trace of a haki_context call: which facts were included, excluded or blocked, and why (reason_code). Provenance proof of the served memory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trace_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?
The description discloses that the tool returns inclusion/exclusion/blocking details with reason codes and provenance proof, implying a read-only inspection. However, it does not mention potential side effects, errors, or authorization requirements.
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 concise, with two clear sentences that front-load the core action and then summarize the output. No redundant wording.
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 description gives a good overview of the tool's purpose and output, but lacks parameter-level detail and usage context. Given the minimal schema and no annotations, it is adequate but not fully complete.
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?
The only parameter, trace_id, has no schema description. The tool description mentions a trace but does not explain how to obtain trace_id, its format, or its relationship to a haki_context call.
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 with a specific verb ('Inspect') and object ('the trace of a haki_context call'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on provenance and reason codes.
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 is given about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (capture, context, correct, forget). It implies use after a haki_context call but does not state alternatives or conditions.
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.