get_trust_scoreReturn the machine-readable Trust Profile for a catalog tool (ownership, availability, compatibility, security, usage).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id_or_slug | Yes |
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?
Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, non-destructive), so the bar is low and the description gets credit for what it adds beyond them: the specific composition of the trust profile (five named dimensions). This gives the agent expectations about response content. No contradiction with annotations—reads align with readOnlyHint=true.
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?
A single sentence, 20 words, zero fluff. The action verb is front-loaded and the parenthetical enumeration is an information-dense, easily scannable list of exactly the five profile components. Every word earns its keep.
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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with comprehensive annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it specifies the target, the return format, and the return content dimensions. Minor gaps include lack of parameter format clarification and slight ambiguity around whether 'catalog tool' means tools in this environment's catalog only, but these are minor for such a simple tool.
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 coverage from description is 0% and the description never references the single id_or_slug parameter. While the parameter name is reasonably self-explanatory and the description doesn't mislead, it offers no format guidance, examples, or context about valid values. Since coverage is below 50%, the description was expected to compensate, and it does not.
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 pairs the specific verb 'Return' with a precise resource—'machine-readable Trust Profile for a catalog tool'—and enumerates five concrete dimensions (ownership, availability, compatibility, security, usage). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_tool (tool metadata) and get_capability_graph (capability relationships).
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?
Usage context is implied by the resource naming—the agent can infer 'call this when you need the machine-readable trust profile of a catalog tool'—but there is no explicit statement of when not to use it or how it relates to alternatives like get_tool or acquire_provenance. Compare to the get_calls example, which explicitly points users to a sibling alternative when different behavior is needed.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct with clear descriptions. Potential overlap exists among search_tools, recommend_tools, list_capabilities, and get_capability_graph, but each serves a different purpose (query vs. recommendation vs. high-level list vs. relational graph). inspect_tool_server vs. get_tool (server vs. tool) and verify_web vs. understand_webpage (reachability vs. content) are clearly separated. Minor ambiguity between list_capabilities and get_capability_graph, but descriptions clarify.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., compare_tools, get_tool, search_tools, verify_web). No mixing of camelCase or inconsistent styles. The naming is uniform and predictable.
12 tools is within the ideal 3-15 range and appropriate for a directory service that provides search, retrieval, comparison, recommendation, inspection, invocation, and web verification. The count is comprehensive without being overwhelming, and each tool adds distinct value.
The tool set covers core directory operations (search, get, compare, recommend) and additional utilities (inspect, invoke, trust score, capability graph). It lacks a direct 'list all tools' or 'list all servers' endpoint, but search_tools and list_capabilities can approximate this. The inclusion of web verification and understanding tools extends beyond the catalog domain, but they are useful adjuncts. Overall, the surface is well-rounded with minor gaps.