read_information_ui_runApp-only unseen-frame reader for the mounted Fify widget.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| runId | Yes | ||
| afterSequence | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| runId | Yes | ||
| state | Yes | ||
| frames | Yes | ||
| lastSequence | Yes |
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 openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'app-only unseen-frame' and 'mounted widget' constraints, which are useful behavioral boundaries, though it does not explain what 'unseen-frame' means or how afterSequence affects state.
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 one-sentence description is brief and front-loads 'App-only unseen-frame reader', but it sacrifices needed semantics for brevity and is closer to under-specification than disciplined 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?
Despite an output schema and annotations covering read-only behavior, the description leaves key invocation semantics unexplained: neither parameter is documented, the 'unseen-frame' contract is undefined, and the sibling render_information_ui is not referenced. An agent cannot reliably select or invoke this tool.
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 says nothing about runId or afterSequence. The agent is left to infer that runId identifies a run and afterSequence is a numeric cursor, with no help from the tool definition.
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 identifies a reader for an information UI run and adds scope ('app-only unseen-frame', 'mounted Fify widget'), but relies on unstated jargon and does not clearly differentiate from the sibling render_information_ui beyond the word 'reader'. It is more specific than a tautology, yet an agent cannot confidently know what operation this performs.
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 usage guidance is provided. There is no statement of when to call this tool versus render_information_ui, no prerequisites such as Fify widget mounting, and no conditions around unseen-frame reads.
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.
The two tools are distinct in action: one reads the mounted widget's frames, the other renders an information view. However, both share the 'information_ui' terminology, and the cryptic 'read_information_ui_run' naming could cause some initial confusion about where the boundary lies.
Both names start with a verb and use snake_case, but 'render_information_ui' follows a clean verb_noun pattern while 'read_information_ui_run' adds an awkward '_run' suffix. This minor inconsistency suggests a mixed convention that is still readable.
With only two tools, the set feels thin for a general-purpose information UI server, but it may be appropriately scoped for a tightly coupled widget with read and render capabilities. The tools each seem to serve a distinct role, making the small count borderline rather than clearly deficient.
For the apparent domain of managing a Fify information widget, providing a read mechanism and a render mechanism covers the core lifecycle. The render tool also incorporates fallback behaviors like profile lookups and media handling, suggesting the surface is reasonably complete for its narrow scope.