get_operational_contextWhether that named member-lane business is currently in-scope for a subsequent bounded operational action, using only operator-authoritative non-PII identity, category, status, site, and timestamps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | No | ||
| grant_token | Yes | HMAC-signed unpaid_invited_canary grant | |
| business_slug | Yes | Must match grant tenant | |
| invitee_identity | No |
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?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose side effects or read-only nature. It doesn't state whether this is a pure read, what authentication is required beyond the token, or what happens on failure.
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?
It's a single concise sentence, but the phrasing is convoluted and not well-structured for an agent to parse.
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?
With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely under-specified. It doesn't mention return format, error behavior, or any operational constraints.
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?
Schema descriptions cover only half the parameters; the description adds no meaningful mapping to parameters. Terms like 'identity' and 'category' are not tied to the parameters.
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 is a noun phrase rather than a clear verb+resource statement. It vaguely indicates a check of 'in-scope' status but uses unexplained jargon ('member-lane business', 'bounded operational action') without clarifying what the tool actually returns or does.
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 explicit guidance on when to use. It implies a pre-action check but provides no context about alternatives or situations to avoid.
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.
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap. The tool's purpose is clearly defined and distinct by virtue of being the sole tool.
The single tool name follows a consistent verb_noun pattern ('get_operational_context'), which is clear and predictable. There are no other tools to create inconsistency.
A single tool feels borderline for most server scopes. While the tool is not trivial, the count is at the low end of the acceptable range, making it somewhat thin but not necessarily an extreme mismatch.
The tool surface is severely incomplete, offering only a 'get' operation with no corresponding create, update, or delete functionality. For any realistic domain lifecycle, this is a significant gap that would force agents to rely on external capabilities.