Return source-freshness and standards-drift evidence for SecurityRecipes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| decision | No | ||
| source_id | No | ||
| freshness_class | No | ||
| publisher_family | No | ||
| watched_source_id | No | ||
| source_class_family | No | ||
| primary_watchlist_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, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits, but it only says 'Return' evidence. It does not clarify whether this is a read-only operation, how the watch is maintained, what data freshness means here, or what side effects, if any, occur. The phrase 'evidence' hints at output rather than mutation, but this is insufficient.
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 with no fluff or repetition. The core idea is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, the extreme brevity is borderline under-specification, so it does not earn a 5.
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?
The tool has seven optional parameters and zero parameter documentation, but the description gives no sense of how to scope the call or which fields matter for different use cases. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the input semantics remain almost entirely unexplained.
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 explain any of the seven optional parameters. Names like 'decision', 'watched_source_id', 'freshness_class', and 'primary_watchlist_id' are opaque without additional context. Since the description fails to compensate for the schema gap, this dimension is severely under-served.
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 a specific action ('Return') and object ('source-freshness and standards-drift evidence for SecurityRecipes'). It conveys what the tool produces and gives enough domain context to distinguish it from generic recipe tools. It falls short of 5 because it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings that may also report on standards conformance or freshness.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention contexts, exclusions, or sibling tools like recipes_agentic_standards_crosswalk or recipes_agentic_readiness_scorecard. An agent would have to infer usage solely from the tool name.
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.