Get detailed information about a specific tenant, including metadata, description, and configuration. Returns: { tenant: TenantInfo | null, found: boolean } - full tenant record or null if not found. Example: call federation_tenant_info with arguments {"tenant_id":""}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tenant_id | Yes | The tenant ID to get information for |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / tenant_id / maxLengthAdded value: +4000Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by disclosing the exact return contract: a tuple-like result with 'tenant' possibly null and 'found' boolean. This explains not-found behavior and the absence of an output schema, going beyond the annotation signals.
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 compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose first, then the return shape, then a concrete example. Every sentence contributes useful information and there is no filler.
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?
This is a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the purpose, expected inputs, return format, and null case. It also provides an executable example. Given the low complexity and strong annotations, no additional context is needed.
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% and the single parameter is described adequately ('The tenant ID to get information for'). The description adds a usage example, but this is largely a re-statement of the schema. No additional semantic detail is provided beyond what the schema already gives.
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 opens with 'Get detailed information about a specific tenant', which clearly identifies the verb (get), the resource (tenant), and the scope (specific tenant). It also lists specific fields ('metadata, description, and configuration') and returns a structured result, distinguishing it from sibling tools like federation_list_tenants or federation_delete_tenant.
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 makes the context clear: use this when you need detailed information for a specific tenant. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the purpose is distinct enough from the sibling tools that the usage context is unambiguous.
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.
Tools are grouped by clear domain prefixes (federation_*, introspection_*, moltbook_*) with each targeting a distinct resource+action (bond_post/release/status, key_challenge/bind/status, journal_append/read). The primary near-overlap — catalog_search_multi vs catalog_search_grouped_multi — is explicitly disambiguated in descriptions. Minor confusion risk exists among the four knowledge tools (federation_help, federation_why, about_us_about, how_to_about) but their purposes (how/why/manual/walkthrough) are distinct enough.
The dominant `federation_<verb>_<noun>` pattern (create_tenant, list_agents, bond_release) is strong, but it's mixed with bare-noun tools (federation_arena, federation_offer, federation_solvency, federation_pricesheet, federation_help) and noun-noun variants (federation_manager_tree, federation_tenant_info). Non-federation tools use a loose `<domain>_<verb>` or single-token convention (legal_get, web_research, about_us_about). Readable overall, but conventions are noticeably mixed across the surface.
At 72 tools this crosses the 50+ threshold for an extreme count. While the federation's scope is genuinely broad (manager lifecycle, tenants, catalog, agents, bonds, keys, journal, canon, introspection, social, email, research), the surface is bloated — roughly 15 bare introspection tools (list_nodes, probe, confidence, diff, coverage_gaps, co_decisions, climb_history, change_graph, change_reach, corpus_*) cover meta-self-knowledge that could plausibly collapse into fewer verbs. Agents would face a very large selection space.
The tool surface is exhaustively complete for the federation domain: applicant and operator sides of admittance, full manager lifecycle (create/list/freeze/attest/bond/key), full tenant lifecycle (create/list/info/update/suspend/delete/enter), catalog discovery with change-detection, pricing, solvency, latency, journaling, governance, legal, and even external outreach (email/moltbook/research). No dead ends exist — every write has a corresponding read/status path, and branched platform tools are intentionally deferred behind enter_tenant rather than omitted.