Skip to main content
Glama

Analyze resource

analyze_resource
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether a resource and everything it depends on is sound — the deployability question. Pass 'hypothetical' to preview a change instead: hypothetical='delete' or 'unpublish' reports what would break WITHOUT changing anything (run it before deleting something other resources may use), and hypothetical='publish' checks whether the draft you are about to publish actually resolves. An APP is the usual subject: it walks every root the app contains (endpoints, schedules, domains) to the end of each chain and reports what would break. Returns findings {resource, path, severity, check, message}: errors are broken now (a reference that does not resolve, a dependency never published, a declared domain that routes elsewhere), warnings are risks (a published resource following @latest, a sub-workflow call cycle, a domain not yet verified), info is advisory. deployable is true when there are no errors. Also reports incomplete_nodes: resources whose references are built at run time and so cannot be checked statically. For a non-root subject like a workflow, analysis starts there rather than from whatever reaches it, so severities are not weighted by reachability.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYesthe kind of resource to analyze: app, dynamic_endpoint, schedule, custom_domain, workflow, api_template, datafile, schema, secret. An app is the usual subject
resourceYesslug of the resource, optionally with a version suffix (e.g. 'shop/storefront' or 'shop/storefront@latest'); a bare slug means @published. For a custom_domain this is the hostname
hypotheticalNoinstead of checking the resource as it is, evaluate a change you are considering: 'delete' or 'unpublish' report what would break (nothing is changed — this is a preview), 'publish' checks whether the DRAFT resolves and flags what already follows this at @published. Run this before a delete or a publish

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
infosYes
errorsYes
subjectYes
findingsYes
warningsYes
deployableYes
incomplete_nodesYes
reachability_knownYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description explicitly states that hypothetical mode makes no changes ('nothing is changed — this is a preview'), aligning with the readOnly and destructiveHint annotations. It also details the return findings structure (resource, path, severity, check, message) and the meaning of severity levels, making side effects and output fully transparent.

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?

The description is somewhat verbose, repeating concepts like 'deployability' and 'what would break' across sentences. However, each sentence adds necessary detail about severity, hypothetical behavior, and special cases, so the length is justified for the complexity. It could be trimmed slightly without losing essential information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description covers all necessary context: what the tool returns, how to interpret severities, how to use hypothetical mode, and the special behavior for non-root subjects. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when and how to call it.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although the schema already provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, the tool description enriches them with practical semantics: it explains version suffixes, bare slug meaning, and what hypothetical values accomplish. This goes beyond the schema by giving real-world usage context and examples, so agents can correctly formulate parameter values.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to check whether a resource and its dependencies are sound for deployment. It specifies the action (analyze) and the resource, and distinguishes itself by focusing on deployability and hypothetical previews, which is not covered by sibling tools like get_resource_graph or validate_workflow.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit guidance on when to use the hypothetical parameter: run it before a delete or publish. It explains what each hypothetical value does ('delete', 'unpublish', 'publish') and clarifies the typical subject (an app) and edge cases (non-root subjects), leaving little ambiguity for the agent.

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.

Resources