Return MCP STDIO launch boundaries, profiles, decisions, and evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| decision | No | ||
| launch_id | No | ||
| profile_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?
Since no annotations are provided, the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Return...', implying a read operation but without confirming side-effect-freeness, auth requirements, or whether results are complete. There is no mention of what happens with null parameters, how many results are returned, or any potential limitations.
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 single sentence is concise but also under-specified. While there is no fluff, the brevity hurts usefulness because it omits critical details. A well-structured description would front-load the primary purpose but still offer parameter 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?
This is a 3-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and a rich set of sibling tools. The description fails to explain the tool's role, the meaning of its inputs, or expected output format (even though an output schema exists). It is thoroughly incomplete for correct invocation.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its three parameters (decision, launch_id, profile_id), so the description must explain their roles. It does not mention any of them, leaving the agent guessing what each parameter controls (e.g., whether decision is a filter or a modifier) and how they interact.
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 a verb ('Return') and lists four nouns ('MCP STDIO launch boundaries, profiles, decisions, and evidence'), but these terms are undefined and the tool's exact scope is unclear. It does not differentiate from many similar boundary-pack siblings (e.g., recipes_agent_handoff_boundary_pack, recipes_mcp_elicitation_boundary_pack), making it hard for an agent to know what makes this tool distinct.
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 mention of when to use this tool, when not to, or which alternatives to consider. The description gives no context about the intended scenario, such as 'when analyzing MCP STDIO launch configurations' or 'prefer this over the handoff pack when...'.
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.