Transparency: which dysfunctions cannot be reliably self-diagnosed. Includes compromised-motivational (subject conceals strategically), compromised-structural (signal lives below introspection), and legacy compromised.
| 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. It discloses the scope (which dysfunctions are included) but does not describe the return value structure, whether it is read-only (implied but not stated), or any limitations. The categories are explained, but the behavioral contract is incomplete.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with 'Transparency' to set context, and lists categories with brief explanations. It is efficient with no fluff, though the opening word could be clearer about the action.
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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is sparse. It does not state what the result looks like (e.g., IDs, names, details), nor does it relate to sibling tools. An agent would struggle to know exactly what to expect from the call, making the description incomplete.
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 zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds context about the content of the list, which is not required for parameters. Baseline of 4 is appropriate because no parameter documentation is needed.
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 the tool lists dysfunctions that cannot be reliably self-diagnosed, and enumerates three categories. The verb 'list' and resource 'compromised self-report' are clear from the name and description. However, it does not explicitly state the output format or differentiate itself from siblings like list_dysfunctions, which weakens precision.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_dysfunctions or differential_diagnosis. The description provides no context for selection criteria or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the intended use.
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.