Resolve one signal code
resolve_signalThe state and meaning of a single ACM-68000 signal code.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | Signal code, e.g. ACM-451 |
MCP CPG Agent Protocols
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only status, authentication needs, or side effects. 'Resolve' implies retrieval but is not explicit.
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?
The description is concise with a single sentence, no extraneous words. However, it lacks structure and could be more informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description should clarify return values. It only vaguely mentions 'state and meaning', leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's output.
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 the parameter described as 'Signal code, e.g. ACM-451'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, earning a baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool resolves a signal code and provides its state and meaning, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_signals which list multiple signals.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_signals or resolve_member. The description does not specify prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource (headers, protocols, members, signals, dimensions) with clear actions (get, list, resolve). There is no overlap in functionality; even the two protocol tools differ in granularity (list vs. get).
Naming Consistency4/5
Naming follows a consistent verb_noun pattern using underscores and lowercase. Minor inconsistency: 'list_sparks_dimensions' uses plural while 'resolve_sparks_dimension' uses singular, but overall the pattern is clear.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools covering headers, protocols, members, signals, and dimensions, the count is well-proportioned for the domain. Each tool addresses a specific query type without unnecessary bloat or gaps.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface provides complete read access to all canonical entities: headers, protocols, members, signals, and dimensions. Listing and resolving operations are covered for each entity, matching the server's stated purpose of querying agent protocol data.