Get the owner's antipattern museum — real engineering mistakes with why they were bad, how they were fixed, and the lesson. Read-only, closed world.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description echoes these as 'Read-only, closed world.' It adds useful scope ('the owner's') and a content preview, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or other behavioral details. Since annotations cover the safety profile, this is adequate but not exceptional.
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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It conveys the resource, content, and scope compactly, and every word contributes meaning.
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 parameterless, read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context about what data is returned (mistakes, rationale, fixes, lessons). It does not mention whether the output is a list or how it is structured, but given the simplicity, the description is nearly 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?
There are zero parameters and schema description coverage is effectively 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. Under the baseline rule for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate.
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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with a unique resource ('the owner's antipattern museum') and details the content: 'real engineering mistakes with why they were bad, how they were fixed, and the lesson.' This makes the purpose clear and distinct from most siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from overlapping tools like get_known_issues or get_experiments.
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 when one wants to learn from past engineering mistakes, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or provide any exclusions. The context is understandable but left to inference.
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.
Most tools map cleanly to distinct content types such as profile, projects, issues, diary, experiments, and live-source verification. A few pairs like get_projects/search_projects and get_articles/verify_article touch the same subject matter, but their descriptions clarify the intended action well enough for an agent.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: get_* for portfolio content, verify_* for external grounding, plus analyze_stack, search_projects, and simulate_architecture. There is no mixing of conventions or vague generic verbs.
18 tools is on the higher end but justified by the portfolio's breadth: content domains, project search/simulation, and open-world verification all have distinct needs. It is slightly heavy but not bloated; each tool has a discernible reason to exist.
The surface covers the full portfolio/interview domain: profile, projects, timeline, articles, repos, packages, issues, engineering history, experiments, principles, and verification. It also includes grounding against live sources, leaving no obvious dead ends for an agent answering questions about the owner.