get_hosting_options
Read-only
Return Verify Hosted MCP runtime/sandbox hosting capabilities, controls, and endpoints.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
MCP Verify
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- Added
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=true in the annotations, the safety profile is already disclosed. The description adds value by specifying the types of information returned (capabilities, controls, endpoints), but does not go into deeper behavioral context such as return format or any side effects. This is a moderate addition on top of the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Return' and directly states the resource and its scope. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, is read-only, and has a simple informational purpose, the description adequately covers what the tool does. It lists the key output categories (capabilities, controls, endpoints), which is sufficient for an agent to know when to call it. It could be slightly more detailed about what 'Verify Hosted' means, but overall it is complete for the tool's complexity.
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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter information needed beyond the empty schema. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema weaknesses. It correctly focuses on the output rather than parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Return' with a clear resource 'Verify Hosted MCP runtime/sandbox hosting capabilities, controls, and endpoints.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_gateway_options or get_subscription_options by explicitly focusing on hosting.
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 description implies the tool is used when hosting capabilities or endpoints are needed, but provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives. It relies on the tool name to signal its purpose, which is acceptable but not explicit.
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.
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
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.
Naming Consistency4/5
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.
Tool Count3/5
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.
Completeness4/5
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.