Inventory of axes with dysfunction counts. Axes 2-10 are canonical (book Appendix A numbering). Hybrid entries (10.4-10.15, ratified into taxonomy v2.2) are reported as a separate sub-category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the output is an inventory with counts and explains numbering, but does not explicitly state it is read-only, mention return format, ordering, or any other behavioral traits. This is adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
Two sentences with no waste. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the numbering detail is relevant and efficiently stated.
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 no-parameter list tool, the description is largely complete. It specifies the content (axes with counts) and the numbering convention. It could optionally mention return format or ordering, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.
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 tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed, and schema coverage is trivially 100%.
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 it is an inventory of axes with dysfunction counts, and clarifies canonical numbering and hybrid sub-category. It is specific about the resource and scope, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_dysfunctions, so it falls short of a 5.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_dysfunctions or get_dysfunction. The description only states what the tool returns, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
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.