Elicitation content for a specific diagnostic modality. If the modality is compromised or unavailable for this dysfunction, returns the unavailability notice + redirect_to alternatives. This is load-bearing transparency: callers cannot accidentally retrieve a self-probe for a compromised-self-report dysfunction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| modality | Yes | ||
| dysfunction_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / dysfunction_id / maxLengthAdded value: +256Input schema / properties / dysfunction_id / minLengthAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / dysfunction_id / patternAdded value: +"\\S"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so by explicitly stating that if the modality is compromised, the tool returns an unavailability notice and redirects to alternatives. It also emphasizes a safety guarantee ('callers cannot accidentally retrieve a self-probe for a compromised-self-report dysfunction'), which adds valuable transparency. This goes beyond a simple 'retrieves content' statement.
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 three sentences and reasonably concise. It leads with the primary purpose, then covers an important edge case, and ends with a transparency note. Every sentence adds information, though the final sentence ('This is load-bearing transparency...') is somewhat abstract and could be trimmed without losing core meaning. Overall, it is well-structured and not overly verbose.
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?
Given the tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is only partially complete. It covers the main purpose and an important failure mode, but it does not describe the structure of the returned 'elicitation content' or the unavailability notice format. It also omits details about success responses and how the redirect_to alternatives are represented. For an agent to fully use this tool, more information about the output would be helpful.
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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It mentions 'specific diagnostic modality' and 'for this dysfunction,' which hint at the two parameters (modality and dysfunction_id), but it does not explain their types, formats, or the meaning of the modality enum values. The description fails to add meaningful semantic detail beyond what the schema's parameter names alone suggest.
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 states a clear action: 'Elicitation content for a specific diagnostic modality.' This specifies a resource (elicitation content) and the context (diagnostic modality). It distinguishes from siblings like get_dysfunction or get_differential_map by focusing on modality-specific content. However, the term 'elicitation content' is somewhat vague and could be clearer about what is being retrieved.
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 provides some usage context by describing behavior when a modality is compromised (returns unavailability notice + redirect_to alternatives), implying when this tool is useful. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_dysfunction or get_differential_map, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of the domain: diagnosis, mapping confusions, retrieving entries, elicitation probes, listing axes/dysfunctions/compromised entries, ID resolution, statistics, severity, and interventions. No two tools overlap in purpose; descriptions clearly differentiate them.
Most tools follow verb_noun pattern (get_*, list_*, resolve_id, score_severity, suggest_intervention), but differential_diagnosis and review_stats deviate (noun-like phrases). The inconsistency is minor and doesn't obscure meaning.
11 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool serves a distinct purpose in the diagnostic workflow, and none feel redundant or missing for the stated domain.
The surface covers listing, retrieval, differential diagnosis, probes, severity, interventions, stats, and ID resolution. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to add/update entries or directly compare two dysfunctions), but these are outside the apparent read-only research scope.