get_readiness_planner_metaReturns metadata describing the readiness planner: its purpose, the assessment sections, the seven possible pathways, the six readiness dimensions, expected completion time, and the educational-use disclaimer.
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool returns metadata and lists the covered topics, which accurately conveys a non-mutating, read-only behavior. It does not discuss response format or potential caveats, but for a simple metadata lookup the description is sufficiently transparent.
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 sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then uses a compact list to convey the full scope of the returned metadata. Every phrase adds useful information, and there is no repetition or filler.
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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description needs to explain what the tool returns, and it does so comprehensively by enumerating purpose, sections, pathways, dimensions, completion time, and disclaimer. It is slightly brief about the actual structure or format of the metadata, but the content inventory is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool confidently.
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 fully captures the input surface and there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately adds no unnecessary parameter details.
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 uses the specific verb 'Returns' with the resource 'metadata describing the readiness planner' and then enumerates exactly what that metadata includes. This clearly distinguishes get_readiness_planner_meta from run_readiness_planner and get_business_info by focusing on descriptive metadata rather than execution or general business data.
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 this tool is for learning about the readiness planner before or without running it, but it never explicitly states when to use it versus run_readiness_planner or get_business_info. There is no direct usage guidance or exclusion, so the agent must infer the intended use from the name and content.
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 clearly distinct role: retrieving company information, retrieving planner metadata, and running the readiness assessment. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
The naming follows a consistent snake_case pattern with clear verb prefixes: get_ for informational retrieval and run_ for executing the assessment. This makes the tool set predictable and easy for an agent to navigate.
Three tools is well-scoped for this specialized readiness planner server. Each tool serves a distinct and necessary function without redundancy or bloat.
The server covers the full intended workflow: learning about the company, understanding the planner, and running the planner to get results. No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose of producing a readiness brief.