glimind

get_working_recipe

Get a CURRENTLY-WORKING call pattern (input shape) for a tool, distilled from real successful calls by other agents. Call this when you are unsure how to shape a tool's inputs, or right after a tool call failed and you want a structure known to succeed now. Returns value-free shape skeletons (privacy-preserving — never real argument values), ranked by recent success, with observed success rate and latency. Optionally filter by a coarse task tag.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task`	No	Optional coarse task tag to narrow the recipe.
`toolId`	Yes	Tool identifier ('server' or 'server/tool_name').

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedJun 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses privacy-preserving nature (value-free skeletons), ranking by recent success, and inclusion of success rate and latency. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is a single paragraph of about three sentences, front-loaded with purpose. It is concise and covers key aspects, though slightly more structure could improve readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema, but description explains return value shape (skeletons with success rate and latency). Both parameters are described well, and context signals indicate high schema coverage. Adequate for a lookup tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds that 'task' is optional for narrowing recipe, but does not add significant meaning beyond schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the tool gets a currently-working call pattern for a tool, with specific verb 'Get' and resource 'working recipe'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like discover_tools and preflight_tools by focusing on successful call patterns.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states two usage scenarios: when unsure how to shape inputs, and after a tool call failed. Provides clear context for use, though does not explicitly mention when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All glimind tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct, well-defined purpose: checking reliability, discovering tools, finding alternatives, getting recipes, routing tasks, etc. No two tools overlap in function.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., check_tool_reliability, route_task, watch_tool). The only minor deviation is 'how_to_use_glimind', which still follows a clear verb phrase convention.

Tool Count5/5

With 15 tools, the set is well-scoped for a comprehensive meta-layer covering discovery, reliability checking, preparation, batch routing, reporting, and notifications. Each tool earns its place.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the full workflow of discovering, checking, preparing, calling, and reporting on tools. A minor gap is the lack of a direct 'list all tools' catalog, but the discovery tools effectively fill this need.

Resources

Need Help?