Identifies missing shot shapes and unserved flight slots across BagIQ's 9 core slot targets (putter, midrange, fairway, and distance drivers), ranking voids by severity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| discs | Yes | List of discs in the bag |
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'identifies' and 'ranks' voids, implying a read-only analysis, but it does not explicitly say whether it modifies the bag or what the return structure looks like beyond a severity ranking. It is not misleading, but it lacks explicit side-effect or output-format transparency.
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 a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core purpose and the ranking behavior. There is no filler or redundancy, making it highly efficient.
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 tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description adequately conveys the tool's function and the fact that it ranks gaps by severity, which gives a hint about the output. It does not describe the exact output format, but for a simple analysis tool, this is sufficient. The main gap is the lack of explicit side-effect disclosure, but that is covered under behavioral transparency.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter 'discs' is fully documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states a specific verb ('Identifies'), a clear resource ('missing shot shapes and unserved flight slots'), and the context of BagIQ's 9 core slot targets. It also mentions ranking by severity, which distinguishes it from siblings like detect_overlap (which checks overlaps) and recommend_bag_fillers (which suggests discs). This is a precise, non-tautological purpose.
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 the tool is for identifying gaps in a bag, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer its primary use, but explicit routing to siblings is absent.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but analyze_bag already reports gaps and overlaps, making find_bag_gaps and detect_overlap partially redundant with it. The descriptions clarify scope enough that an agent can choose correctly.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb-first pattern: analyze, build, detect, find, recommend. No mixed conventions or vague naming.
Five tools is well-scoped for a bag analysis server, covering the core workflow without unnecessary bloat. Each tool has a clear role in the analysis pipeline.
The server covers the full bag analysis lifecycle: overall assessment, gap identification, overlap detection, minimal bag optimization, and filler recommendations. No obvious missing operation or dead end for the stated purpose.