Pre-flight a WHOLE task in one call: pass every tool you might use and get a compact verdict + recommendation (proceed | proceed_with_caution | avoid) for each, so you can plan around broken tools before you start. Call this once at the beginning of a multi-tool task instead of checking tools one at a time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| toolIds | Yes | Tool identifiers you plan to use (up to 50). |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a compact verdict and recommendation, but does not mention any side effects, permissions required, or error handling. It is adequate but lacks deeper behavioral context.
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 consists of two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value, with no waste.
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 no output schema, the description explains that the tool returns a verdict and recommendation for each tool, listing the three possible verdicts. It does not detail the exact structure or error handling, but it is fairly complete for an agent to understand.
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?
The only parameter 'toolIds' is described in the schema as an array of strings. The description adds the useful constraint 'up to 50', which is not in the schema. However, it does not elaborate on the expected format of identifiers further.
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 that the tool pre-flights a whole task by checking multiple tools in one call, returning a verdict and recommendation for each. It distinguishes itself from checking tools one at a time and differentiates from siblings like check_tool_reliability.
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 explicitly says to call this at the beginning of a multi-tool task instead of checking tools one at a time, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives beyond the implied comparison.
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 distinct, well-defined purpose: checking reliability, discovering tools, finding alternatives, getting recipes, routing tasks, etc. No two tools overlap in function.
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.
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.
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.