describe_agent
Return capabilities and input contract.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
verdigraph
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose key behaviors. It states the tool returns information, implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on side effects, authentication, or output nature. The description is too minimal to fully inform the agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain what 'capabilities' or 'input contract' refer to, which could cause ambiguity. More context would improve completeness.
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, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by stating the purpose of the tool beyond the empty schema. No need for parameter details.
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 'Return capabilities and input contract' clearly identifies the tool's action and subject. It distinguishes from siblings like 'build_brain' or 'verify_brain', which involve construction or verification, while this tool is about introspection. However, it could be more specific about what 'capabilities' entails.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given sibling tools like 'build_brain', 'detect_format', 'verify_brain', explicit context for when to describe rather than build or verify would help agent 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
A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: building a brain, detecting format, describing agent capabilities, and verifying claims. No overlapping functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (build_brain, describe_agent, detect_format, verify_brain).
Tool Count5/5
Four tools is well-scoped for the domain of agent file compilation and verification. Each tool earns its place with a distinct action.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers detection, compilation, description, and verification of agent files, forming a complete lifecycle for the domain.