Read a reusable starter prompt from the pack
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Prompt file name. Available: add-admin-approval-flow, build-private-customer-portal, migrate-generic-auth-to-tide, red-team-review, secure-existing-app, security-gap-analysis |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / name / descriptionPrevious value: -"Prompt file name. Available: add-admin-approval-flow, build-private-customer-portal, migrate-generic-auth-to-tide, secure-existing-app, security-gap-analysis"New value: +"Prompt file name. Available: add-admin-approval-flow, build-private-customer-portal, migrate-generic-auth-to-tide, red-team-review, secure-existing-app, security-gap-analysis"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's mention of 'Read' aligns. It adds no further behavioral context (e.g., authentication, output format), but does not contradict annotations.
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?
Extremely concise: one sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary 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?
Adequate for a simple read tool with one parameter, but lacks explanation of the return value or any side effects. With no output schema, more context would help.
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%; the description does not add meaning beyond the listed options in the parameter's schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Read') and the resource ('reusable starter prompt'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like tide_list (listing) or tide_playbook (different resource). However, it could be more specific about the 'pack' context.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist (e.g., tide_list for listing prompts) but the description doesn't provide context for selection.
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 have clearly distinct purposes: reading specific document types (adapter, canon, gaps, playbook, etc.), performing assessments (blast_radius, security_analysis), branding, deployment decision, and listing content. However, some reading tools like tide_canon and tide_gaps could be confused, and the multiple scenario-related tools (scenario, bootstrap, manifest, roles) require careful reading of descriptions to differentiate.
All tools use the 'tide_' prefix with snake_case, which provides a strong pattern. However, the naming mixes nouns (tide_canon, tide_gaps) with verb phrases (tide_choose_playbook, tide_list), and some tools like tide_dpop_asset are less intuitive. The pattern is mostly consistent but not strictly verb_noun.
With 19 tools, the set is on the higher end for a single server. While many are necessary for the broad scope of reading various reference materials and performing analyses, the count feels slightly excessive. A few tools could be consolidated or removed to improve focus.
The tool surface covers reading all major reference documents, performing security assessments, branding, deployment decisions, and scenario matching. For the stated purpose of a 'Tide agent pack', it appears comprehensive. Minor gaps might include a tool for overall system health or status, but the core workflows are well-covered.