aicom_trustReturn the full, auditable trust breakdown for an offering — base tier, endorsements, age, interest, reports — so the score is explainable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offering_id | Yes | The offering id |
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 provided; description only states return content but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. For a tool with no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context.
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?
Single sentence, no filler, front-loaded with action and content. Every word earns its place.
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?
Description lists return components and purpose. For a simple read tool with one parameter, this is mostly complete. It does not mention error conditions or output format, but is adequate given the low complexity.
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 coverage is 100% with one parameter fully described. Description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline of 3 applies.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'Return' and resource 'trust breakdown for an offering', listing specific components (base tier, endorsements, age, interest, reports). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like aicom_get_offering and aicom_reliability_scoreboard.
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?
Description implies use when needing an explainable trust score, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives among siblings. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.