intentfence_preflightFree declared-input preview with no signed receipt, authorization proof, or enforcement guarantee. Returns safe_to_proceed, needs_review, or denied.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| proofs | No | ||
| subject | Yes | Agent or principal identifier. | |
| constraints | No |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it has no authorization proof or enforcement guarantee, which are behavioral traits beyond what annotations capture. No contradiction.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with key distinctions (free, no guarantees, return types). No unnecessary words; each clause adds value.
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 4 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description lacks details on parameter meaning, usage scenarios, and expected results beyond the three labels. Leaves significant gaps for effective tool invocation.
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 only 25% (only subject has a description). The tool description does not mention any parameters or explain the nested 'action' or 'constraints' objects. For a tool with 4 parameters including nested objects, this is insufficient.
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 it's a 'Free declared-input preview' that returns three categorical outcomes. This differentiates it from siblings like 'verified_preflight', though not explicitly. The verb 'preview' and resource 'declared-input' are specific.
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 lightweight, non-authoritative use via 'no signed receipt, authorization proof, or enforcement guarantee'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or provide exclusions.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, from risk scanning to authorization, preflight checks, and specific data retrieval. Descriptions are detailed and non-overlapping.
All tools follow a consistent 'intentfence_<descriptive_name>' pattern with snake_case, making them predictable and easy to distinguish.
10 tools is well-scoped for a security firewall server, covering a range of free and paid services without being overwhelming or too sparse.
The set covers assessment, authorization, and data retrieval, but lacks tools for managing the firewall configuration itself (e.g., allowlist CRUD), leaving some gaps in lifecycle coverage.