List all engineering domains with summary statistics.
Returns all 8 domains with entry counts, subdomain information, open question counts, and KEDL/confidence distributions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It does disclose that the tool returns all 8 domains and enumerates the kinds of summary statistics included (entry counts, subdomain info, open question counts, KEDL/confidence distributions). However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or any side-effect behavior, though the description implies a read operation.
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?
The description is two sentences, with the first providing a clear summary and the second adding relevant details about return contents. No extraneous information.
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 simplicity of a no-parameter list operation and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context by specifying the exact number of domains and the categories of statistics. It lacks explicit usage guidance or confirmation of non-mutation, but those are covered by other dimensions.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty and the description does not need to explain parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics because there are none, which is appropriate.
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 the tool 'List all engineering domains with summary statistics' and specifies the scope ('all 8 domains') and the types of stats returned. It distinguishes from siblings by indicating a complete list rather than a targeted query, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with get_domain_stats.
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 the sibling tools, particularly get_domain_stats which may be similar. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.
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: retrieving entries, cross-references, parameters, stats, open questions, domains, search, registration, and submission. No two tools appear to perform the same function, and the descriptions clarify when to use each.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: get_cross_references, list_domains, read_node, submit_proposal, etc. The verb prefixes (get, list, read, search, register, submit) align with their operations, making the pattern predictable.
With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for a knowledge base system. Each tool covers a core functionality (retrieval, search, stats, submission, registration) without redundancy or bloat, striking the right balance for the stated purpose.
The tool surface covers the main workflows: reading, searching, cross-referencing, statistics, and submission. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct listing of all entries in a domain and no update/delete operations for submissions, but these are workable around and do not severely hinder typical usage.