Generate agent-readable MCP artifacts from product docs: server card, llms.txt, tool schemas, examples, policy metadata, score preview, and hosted docs page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| metadata | No | ||
| source_url | No | ||
| source_type | No | ||
| openapi_spec | No | ||
| website_docs | No | ||
| markdown_docs | No | ||
| policy_metadata | No | ||
| server_identifier | No | ||
| postman_collection | No |
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?
Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only. The description adds that it generates artifacts, which aligns with the annotation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting existing artifacts or any permissions or prerequisites, though the annotation lowers the baseline.
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, front-loaded sentence that begins with the verb and resource, then enumerates the artifact types. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary detail.
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?
With 10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, this description is completely inadequate. The agent cannot determine what each parameter does, which inputs are needed for a given source type, or how the artifacts are generated from the inputs.
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, and the tool description does not explain any of the 10 parameters. It only vaguely references 'product docs' without mapping to fields like source_url, openapi_spec, or markdown_docs, leaving the agent without guidance on how to invoke the tool.
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 generates agent-readable MCP artifacts from product docs and lists specific artifact types (server card, llms.txt, tool schemas, etc.), distinguishing it from the analysis, comparison, and policy tools in the sibling list.
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?
While no explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, the description provides clear context that this tool is for compiling product documentation into a specific set of artifacts. The usage is implied but unambiguous given the tool's unique purpose.
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 and actions (e.g., get_agent vs. get_drift_report). A few pairs like search/search_servers and fetch/get_server_report overlap in intent, but descriptions clarify differences in output and purpose. Agents may need to read carefully but can generally tell tools apart.
Nearly all tool names follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (list_agents, create_mandate, export_policy). The bare aliases 'fetch' and 'search' deviate slightly, but are clearly intentional, and there is no mix of camelCase or other styles. Overall consistent and predictable.
22 tools is on the heavy side, falling into the '16-25' borderline range. While each tool appears to serve a distinct function, the set could be consolidated (e.g., the multiple 'get_*_options' tools). It is not excessive enough to be chaotic, but it is above the ideal 3-15 range.
The tool surface covers core workflows for server search, comparison, report generation, policy export, mandate creation, agent risk management, and decision-making. Minor gaps exist, such as no create/update/delete for most resources and no subscription creation, but the domain is read/decision-heavy and core lifecycle coverage is adequate.