Mode 3 ("The Manager"): deprecate (delete code + registry entry) any published tool that has earned zero payments after the deprecation window.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
The description reveals that the tool deletes code and registry entries, which is destructive. However, the name 'check_tool_health' strongly implies a read-only operation, creating a misleading impression. No additional behavioral details (e.g., side effects, required permissions) are disclosed beyond the brief destructive mention.
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, but it is confusing due to the unexplained reference to 'Mode 3' and the mismatch with the tool name. Conciseness is undermined by lack of clarity.
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 an output schema but no details are provided in the description about what is returned. The description focuses on a deprecation side effect without explaining the health check itself or how the output relates. This leaves a significant gap for the agent.
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?
With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it correctly provides no extra 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 describes a deprecation action under 'Mode 3 (The Manager)', which contradicts the tool name 'check_tool_health'. The name implies a read-only health check, but the description discusses deleting code and registry entries. This mismatch severely obscures the tool's actual 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.