Manually fire a trigger — evaluates its condition and runs the simulation template regardless of whether the threshold is currently met. Useful for testing triggers or forcing an immediate evaluation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| force | No | When true, run simulation even if the condition is not currently met (default: false). | |
| trigger_id | Yes | Trigger ID from register_trigger or list_triggers. |
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?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors like running regardless of threshold, but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., data modification, notifications) or authorization needs.
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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and purpose.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description is sufficient. It covers what the tool does and when to use it, leaving no major gaps for an agent to misunderstand.
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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are well-documented. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, only reinforcing that the trigger fires regardless of threshold.
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 the tool fires a trigger, evaluates its condition, and runs the simulation template regardless of threshold. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'register_trigger' and 'pause_trigger' by focusing on manual firing.
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?
The description explicitly notes it is useful for testing triggers or forcing immediate evaluation, providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the purpose is well-defined.
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.
Most tools target distinct resources or actions, but there is some overlap (e.g., run_repository_fix vs run_repository_pipeline vs simulate_repository) that could cause confusion. Overall, descriptions help differentiate.
Tool names are primarily snake_case with a verb_noun pattern, but there are inconsistencies (e.g., single-word verbs like 'simulate', 'tokenize', and mixed prefixes like 'preview_', 'product_'). The pattern is readable but not uniform.
With 140 tools, the server is extremely over-scoped for typical MCP usage. This overwhelms agents and suggests poor separation of concerns, likely violating the principle of minimal tool surfaces.
The tool set covers a wide range of functionalities including data onboarding, simulation, decisions, repository management, and admin operations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update_agent_run), but core workflows are well-supported.
