list_checksReturns the current public audit categories and scoring caveat.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| checks | Yes | ||
| scoringNote | 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 declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds minimal extra context by mentioning 'public' and 'scoring caveat', but does not detail any behavioral nuances beyond the annotations.
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?
Single sentence is concise and front-loaded. Every word adds value with no fluff.
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 no parameters and an output schema exists, the description adequately explains its return (audit categories and scoring caveat). No gaps identified.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline of 4 is appropriate; description adds no parameter info but none 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?
Description clearly states the tool returns current public audit categories and scoring caveat. It aligns with the title and distinguishes from sibling tools that perform audits or manage audit results.
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 siblings like audit_url or get_audit_status. The description lacks context for decision-making.
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 has a distinct purpose: starting audits, deleting, estimating, status checking, listing checks, and starting paid audits. No functional overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., audit_url, delete_audit, estimate_audit). No mixing of conventions.
Six tools is a well-scoped set for an auditing service, covering the essential operations without unnecessary redundancy.
The tool surface covers the full audit lifecycle: estimation, free/paid start, status, and deletion. Minor gap: no tool to list all audits for a user.