Return the generated critical-infrastructure secure-context profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| decision | No | ||
| sector_id | No | ||
| control_id | No | ||
| buyer_view_id | No | ||
| readiness_status | 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 disclosure burden. 'Return' implies a read operation rather than a mutation, which is helpful, but the description does not disclose what happens if the profile has not been generated, whether parameters filter or transform the result, or any side effects or prerequisites.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action and object efficiently, though it is sparse. Conciseness is good even though completeness is lacking.
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 five optional parameters, no annotations, and no parameter-level documentation. The description names the returned profile but does not explain how the parameters relate to that profile, what 'critical-infrastructure' means in this context, or how this tool fits into the broader secure-context recipe family. The output schema reduces the need to explain return structure, but the operational context is still under-specified.
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%, so the description must compensate for the five undocumented parameters. It does not mention decision, sector_id, control_id, buyer_view_id, or readiness_status at all. An agent gets no additional meaning beyond the parameter names and default-null values in the schema.
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 retrieval verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('generated critical-infrastructure secure-context profile'). It is more specific than a tautology, but it does not differentiate this pack from the many other secure-context sibling tools such as recipes_secure_context_trust_pack or recipes_secure_context_attestation_pack.
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 about when this tool should be used, how it relates to sibling secure-context tools, or what prior steps are needed for the profile to exist. The word 'generated' implies a dependency but nothing explicitly states when to call this vs. alternatives.
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.