Return MCP/A2A protocol conformance evidence and buyer-ready drift controls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| check_id | No | ||
| decision | No | ||
| source_id | No | ||
| protocol_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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'Return', implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, authentication needs, ordering, or failure modes. No contradiction with annotations exists because none are present.
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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action word, and contains no filler. However, given the complexity of the tool (four optional parameters, output schema, and a large family of sibling packs), the brevity is under-specification rather than appropriate conciseness; it lacks necessary context.
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?
Providing only a terse summary, the description does not explain what the returned evidence or drift controls look like, how the parameters influence the output, or when this pack is appropriate. Even though an output schema exists, it is not referenced, and the description does not help the agent understand the expected result or use case.
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 mention any of the four optional parameters (check_id, decision, source_id, protocol_id). There is no explanation of their purpose, constraints, or relationships, so the description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema, failing to compensate for the lack of detailed schema descriptions.
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 states the verb 'Return' and the resource 'MCP/A2A protocol conformance evidence and buyer-ready drift controls', giving a clear high-level action and subject. However, it does not distinguish this from many similar sibling packs, nor does it define what 'conformance evidence' or 'drift controls' concretely include.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither names alternative tools nor provides conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The empty description leaves the agent without criteria for selecting this pack over the numerous closely named sibling packs.
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.