Return browser-agent workspace classes, task profiles, controls, and evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| decision | No | ||
| risk_tier | No | ||
| task_profile_id | No | ||
| workspace_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 full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only says 'Return' and lists output categories. It does not explain whether filtering occurs, how the four nullable inputs affect results, whether this is read-only, or any side effects or access considerations.
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, compact sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource list, though it is shorter than the complexity of a four-parameter tool might warrant.
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 tool with four optional nullable parameters, no annotations, and many similar sibling packs, the description is incomplete. The output schema covers return structure, but an agent still lacks needed context about when to use this pack, what each input means, and how this boundary pack differs from related ones.
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 only loosely maps to parameters: 'task profiles' suggests task_profile_id and 'workspace classes' suggests workspace_class_id, but 'decision' and 'risk_tier' are entirely unexplained. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
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 clear verb ('Return') and identifies a specific resource: browser-agent workspace classes, task profiles, controls, and evidence. The browser-agent qualifier helps distinguish it from the many other boundary-pack siblings, though the description does not explicitly contrast it with them.
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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as recipes_agent_handoff_boundary_pack or recipes_context_egress_boundary_pack. The browser-agent wording implies a context, but the description never states selection criteria, prerequisites, or 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.
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.