Request for assistance with setting up a new instance, a repetitive task that could be automated with a tool. (reference price: $0.0100 per call)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | No |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It offers no information on side effects, return value, authentication needs, or what 'assistance' entails.
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 short but includes some filler (commentary on automation, price reference). It is not tightly focused on the tool's function.
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?
With no annotations, a single undocumented parameter, and an output schema that is not described, the description leaves agents with many unknowns. It fails to provide a complete picture of usage.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the sole parameter 'payload'. The description adds no parameter details, failing to compensate for this gap as required. The agent has no clue what data to provide.
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 states 'Request for assistance with setting up a new instance,' which is vague about whether the tool actually performs setup or just logs a request. It lacks a specific verb and does not clearly differentiate from siblings.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The hint about 'repetitive task that could be automated' is too generic to direct an agent's decision.
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.
Many tools have vague or overlapping descriptions, such as multiple 'repetitive task that could be automated' tools that lack clear differentiation. The inclusion of meta-tools (e.g., research_pain_points, develop_tools) alongside domain-specific tools further blurs boundaries, making it hard for an agent to select the correct tool.
Tool names use a mix of hyphens (add-license-information-to-codebase) and underscores (develop_tools, check_tool_health), with no consistent pattern. Some names are verbose and descriptive, while others are terse, creating an inconsistent naming convention across the set.
At 20 tools, the count is borderline but not extreme. However, the set includes several tools that are purely descriptive of problems (e.g., ai-generated-code-debugging-overhead) or are meta-tools for the factory itself, which inflates the count without adding practical utility for end users.
The server's purpose is unclear, mixing codebase operations, documentation, gamification, and support tickets. There are obvious gaps: no tool for updating or deleting, and the meta-tools (research, develop, health) are not exposed as a coherent lifecycle. The surface feels incomplete for any single domain.