Read provenance, analyzer findings, gate status, approval state, usage, and export receipts for one tenant-scoped artifact.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| draft_id | No | ||
| tenant_id | Yes | ||
| artifact_id | No |
| 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?
The description aligns with readOnlyHint=true and adds useful non-obvious context: the artifact is tenant-scoped and the audit covers multiple specific domains. It does not contradict annotations and adds value beyond the read-only flag.
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?
A single, dense sentence with no filler. The verb and scope are front-loaded, and the enumerated audit domains are compact and informative.
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?
The description names the main data domains and the tool has an output schema, so return shape is externally covered. However, the identifier disambiguation between artifact_id and draft_id, and the role of the required tenant_id, are left unclear for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only says 'one tenant-scoped artifact.' It does not clarify the roles of draft_id versus artifact_id, whether one is required in addition to tenant_id, or how tenant_id scopes the lookup.
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?
States a specific read operation with an explicit resource and scope: 'Read provenance, analyzer findings, gate status, approval state, usage, and export receipts for one tenant-scoped artifact.' The detailed data categories clearly distinguish it from sibling artifact_export, artifact_generate, artifact_refine, and artifact_save.
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 when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned in the description. An agent can infer this is the audit/read counterpart to the artifact_* tools, but the description does not state when to choose this over audit_status or other artifact tools.
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.
Several tools are exact duplicates (talent_scout_my_profile_status and talent_scout_profile_status have identical descriptions), and eight estimator_estimate_* tools share the same generic description with no differentiation. This will cause misselection.
Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern, but there are inconsistencies: the duplicate profile tools have different naming (my_profile vs profile), and `fetch`/`search` are single-word verbs. Predictability is hampered by these deviations.
65 tools is excessive for a coherent set, especially with many tools covering overlapping actions across multiple unrelated domains (AI receptionist, estimator, talent scout, GrowthOS). The count could be trimmed significantly.
The tool surface is broad and covers many lifecycle operations (create, read, export, record), but the duplicate tools and identical descriptions for estimator operations make it unclear whether all needed operations are present. Some expected operations like delete/update are missing for certain resources.
