Skip to main content
Glama

Analyze resource

analyze_resource
Read-only

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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses that hypothetical mode runs 'WITHOUT changing anything' and explicitly says 'nothing is changed — this is a preview', which is consistent with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. It also adds non-obvious behaviors: incomplete_nodes are runtime-built references that cannot be statically checked, and non-root subjects are analyzed without reachability weighting.

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 long but densely useful, with the core purpose front-loaded and examples inline. Minor redundancy exists ('WITHOUT changing anything' and later 'nothing is changed — this is a preview'), but the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

For a tool with an output schema, the description still covers the essential return semantics (findings, deployable, incomplete_nodes), parameter syntax, and the non-root subject behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is already 100%, and the description adds meaning on top: bare slugs mean @published, custom_domain expects a hostname, and hypothetical defines delete/unpublish/publish semantics with concrete examples. This materially improves an agent's ability to pick correct values.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states a specific action ('Check whether a resource and everything it depends on is sound') and names the deployability outcome (errors/warnings/deployable), making the tool's job unambiguous. However, it never explicitly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_resource_graph or validate_workflow, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: run it before deleting or unpublishing something that other resources may use, and before publishing a draft to see whether it resolves. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every resource family follows the same verb+noun pattern and each tool name uniquely identifies a resource-action pair (create_app vs create_app_version vs update_app vs publish_app). Closest overlaps like analyze_resource vs get_resource_graph and patch_datafile vs update_datafile are explicitly differentiated by their descriptions, so misselection risk is low despite the scale.

Naming Consistency5/5

Names are almost uniformly verb_noun snake_case with a consistent lifecycle vocabulary: create/get/update/delete/list/publish/unpublish/version. Minor outliers like whoami and run_schedule_now are idiomatic and do not break the predictability of the set.

Tool Count1/5

At 93 tools this far exceeds the calibration's 50+ extreme-mismatch case. The count is inflated by repeating create/get/update/delete/version/publish/unpublish across ten resource families; even though each family is systematic, the combined surface is very hard for an agent to navigate and keep in context.

Completeness4/5

Core CRUD/publish/version lifecycles are present for apps, workflows, endpoints, schedules, schemas, datafiles, and api templates, and dependency analysis is well covered. However, secret creation/updating, asset upload, custom-domain deletion, and version-range enumeration for several resource types are absent or left to the external dashboard, so agents hit a few manual dead ends.

Resources