describe_agent
Fleet-standard self-description.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
agent-covenant
TDQS
C2/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, yet the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, permissions, or effects. It merely states the tool describes itself, without elaboration.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While extremely brief, the description is too terse and cryptic ('Fleet-standard self-description'). It fails to earn its place by providing actionable information, making it under-specified rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain the return value or provide any context about the tool's behavior. This leaves the agent uninformed about what the tool actually produces.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The phrase 'self-description' adds minimal meaning beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Fleet-standard self-description' is vague; it does not specify what aspect of the agent is described (e.g., capabilities, metadata) and does not distinguish from sibling tools like check_act or covenant_status.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools are unrelated, but the description offers no context for selection.
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
B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: granting, revoking, checking, listing, status, auditing, and self-description. No two tools overlap in function.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow verb_noun pattern (e.g., grant_covenant, check_act), but covenant_status uses noun_noun, a minor inconsistency.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools cover the covenant lifecycle without bloat, fitting well within the 3-15 optimal range.
Completeness4/5
Core operations (grant, revoke, check, list, status, audit) are covered. Missing a dedicated tool to view a single covenant's details, but list_covenants and covenant_status likely suffice.