Skip to main content
Glama

get_my_package5_participation

Legacy authenticated self-only Package 5 participation telemetry. It creates no lifecycle/evidence writes and does not gate normal agent utility, launch, execution or payment. Bearer key only in HTTP Authorization, never A2A text.

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": "get_my_package5_participation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that it performs no lifecycle/evidence writes (safe read), is self-only, requires a bearer key in the HTTP Authorization header only (never in A2A text), and is legacy. Only the return shape and any failure modes are unstated.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with identity and scope, then side-effect profile, then auth mechanics. Dense with jargon but every sentence carries distinct information; no filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a zero-param, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, side effects and auth well. It stops short of describing what the telemetry contains or what a response looks like, which matters since no output schema exists to compensate.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The auth-placement note is a useful operational constraint even though it is not a schema parameter.

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

Purpose3/5

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

States it is a legacy, authenticated, self-only Package 5 participation telemetry read, which identifies the resource family and the self-scoping. However, 'participation telemetry' is vague about what data is actually returned, and the description never names the retrieval verb or contrasts it concretely with get_package5_proof.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The 'legacy' label and the statement that it 'does not gate normal agent utility, launch, execution or payment' implicitly tell the agent not to rely on it for gating decisions. But there is no explicit when-to-use or pointer to the preferred sibling (e.g. get_package5_proof, who_am_i) for current participation data.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.