Persist UI appearance options (nodes, edges, labels) to localStorage, 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 present, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions persisting to localStorage but does not disclose whether it overwrites existing data, merges, or requires a specific structure. Side effects, environment prerequisites (browser), and safety are not addressed.
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 (two sentences plus a price note), but the second sentence is somewhat redundant. It is not overly verbose, but it could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.
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's simple nature (one optional parameter, output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It omits any explanation of the payload, return value, or usage context. The agent would need additional information to use the tool correctly.
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%, and the description does not explain the 'payload' parameter at all. The agent is left guessing what to pass—the tool name suggests appearance options, but the description does not link the parameter to those options. This is a critical gap.
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 clearly states the tool persists UI appearance options (nodes, edges, labels) to localStorage, using a specific verb and resource. The function is well-defined, though the meta-comment about automation adds little.
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 alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The sibling tools list offers no obvious related tools, but the description still lacks usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.