Return agentic incident response classes, phases, workflow matrix, and evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| decision | No | ||
| severity | No | ||
| workflow_id | No | ||
| incident_class_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Return' weakly implies a read-style operation, but it does not disclose whether the tool is deterministic, how parameters influence results, error behavior, or whether any side effects exist.
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 one compact sentence with no filler, and the core content items are front-loaded. It earns its place, though the conciseness is achieved at the expense of substantive detail.
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?
For a pack tool with four optional parameters and no annotation coverage, this description is too thin. It does not explain how parameters shape the returned pack, when the tool should be used, or how it differs from related sibling packs; the output schema mitigates only the return-format gap.
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 does not explicitly mention any of the four parameters. The listed content (classes, phases, workflow matrix, evidence) maps only loosely to incident_class_id, workflow_id, severity, and decision, adding little beyond the parameter names themselves.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the resource as agentic incident response content: classes, phases, workflow matrix, and evidence. It is fairly clear what domain this tool addresses, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from the many sibling recipe-pack tools.
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 when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternative sibling tools are mentioned. An agent must infer from the name and the listed content when to use this pack instead of related ones such as recipes_agentic_soc_detection_pack or recipes_agentic_readiness_scorecard.
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.
Many tools return 'pack' artifacts with nearly identical descriptions, such as recipes_agentic_assurance_pack, recipes_agentic_posture_snapshot, and recipes_agentic_readiness_scorecard, or recipes_mcp_connector_intake_pack versus recipes_mcp_connector_trust_pack. Distinct domains like CVE lookup and playbooks are clear, but dozens of evidence/profile packs blur together and will cause misselection.
All names use the recipes_ prefix and snake_case, and most pack tools follow a [domain]_[topic]_pack pattern, which aids recognition. However, verbs are placed inconsistently and mixed with noun-only names: recipes_get, recipes_cve_get, recipes_mcp_server_get, recipes_refresh, and many pure 'pack' names.
Seventy-five tools is an extreme count for any MCP server, especially when the majority are highly specialized 'pack' endpoints with narrow outputs. The sheer number creates major selection overhead and makes the tool surface difficult for an agent to navigate reliably.
The server covers its apparent read-only scope thoroughly: recipe search/get, CVE lookup, playbook planning, MCP server catalog, upstream MCP introspection, and extensive evidence packs. There are no obvious dead ends, though the massive pack proliferation makes it harder for agents to know which tool to call.