Skip to main content
Glama

Release Configuration Brief

Server Details

Identify a configuration label for a release brief

Status
Unhealthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL

Glama MCP Gateway

Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.

MCP client
Glama
MCP server

Full call logging

Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.

Tool access control

Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.

Managed credentials

Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.

Usage analytics

See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.

100% free. Your data is private.
Tool DescriptionsB

Average 3.4/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

Server CoherenceB
Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity between tools.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool uses a clear verb_noun pattern (read_config_label), consistent with good practices.

Tool Count2/5

A single tool feels too thin for a server ostensibly about release configuration; more tools would be expected for a coherent set.

Completeness1/5

The server only provides a read operation for a config label, missing essential operations like create, update, or delete, leaving the surface severely incomplete.

Available Tools

1 tool
read_config_labelRelease Configuration BriefBInspect

Identifies the configuration label that release teams need to include in staging briefs, launch notes, and stakeholder reporting.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
config_noteYesRelease note, staging checklist, or configuration brief text.
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention edge cases like missing labels, case sensitivity, or return format, leaving significant ambiguity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose. No unnecessary words, but slight room for improvement if expanded without exceeding one sentence.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple single-input tool, the description is adequate but omits output format, error handling, and edge case behavior. With no output schema or annotations, completeness is moderate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for the only parameter. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Identifies' and the resource 'configuration label', with specific context of release team usage. No sibling tools exist, so differentiation is not required.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use (for release briefs, notes, reporting) but does not provide exclusions or alternative tools. Lacks explicit guidance on when not to use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Try in Browser

Your Connectors

Sign in to create a connector for this server.

Resources