complaint_bureauRead who may file a complaint about a paid agent transaction, what is verified, how long the counterparty has to reply, what is never done, and the current limits stated openly. Returns the same source the public page renders, so the two cannot drift apart. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 indicate read-only and idempotent. Description adds that it returns public page source (no drift), is free, and what content is covered. This goes beyond 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?
Two concise sentences. First sentence front-loads key content, second adds value about source consistency. No wasted words.
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 no parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description is mostly complete. It lacks response format details but references public page source, which is acceptable.
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; schema coverage is 100%. Description does not need to add param info but effectively explains what will be returned, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool.
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 reads the Complaint Bureau method and eligibility rules, listing specific content like who may file, verification, reply time, and limits. It distinguishes from write tools like file_complaint.
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 implies use for reading eligibility rules before filing, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions or mentions of alternative tools. The sibling context helps, but no direct guidelines.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.