list_offense_slugsList the offense slugs accepted by national_estimate / state_summary / agency_summary. Returns a static list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of offense slugs | |
| offenses | Yes | Valid offense slugs |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "description": "Number of offense slugs",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "offenses": {
+ "description": "Valid offense slugs",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "offenses",
+ "count"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying the tool returns a static list and is tied to specific sibling tools, providing context beyond annotations.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence concisely conveys all necessary information without superfluous words, earning a top score for efficiency.
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 presence of an output schema and no parameters, the description is fully sufficient. It explains the tool's purpose and its relationship to sibling tools, making it complete.
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?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description is unnecessary for parameters since there are none, meeting the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.
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 lists offense slugs accepted by three specific sibling tools (national_estimate, state_summary, agency_summary), providing a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from data retrieval tools.
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?
The description implies usage before calling national_estimate/state_summary/agency_summary to obtain valid slugs, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives.
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.