Security Recipes

Recipes Model Provider Routing Pack

recipes_model_provider_routing_pack

Return model-provider route profiles, workflow mappings, and required evidence.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "recipes_model_provider_routing_pack"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`decision`	No
`model_id`	No
`route_id`	No
`risk_tier`	No
`provider_id`	No
`workflow_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states what is returned but omits whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, whether the output is cached or fresh, and any other operational traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, but its extreme brevity leaves it underspecified for a tool with six unannotated parameters.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values in detail. However, with no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and no usage guidance, the definition is incomplete for helping an agent understand how to invoke this routing pack correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention or explain any of them. Parameters such as decision, model_id, route_id, risk_tier, provider_id, and workflow_id are left entirely opaque, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the resource types it produces: model-provider route profiles, workflow mappings, and required evidence. It does not, however, differentiate this tool from the many similarly named recipes_* sibling tools, so it falls short of the 5 level.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no indication of when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling tool is the alternative. An agent has no routing guidance for selecting this pack over the other recipe packs.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Security Recipes tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.