sync_all
Trigger all sync_to_ampel across TestOracle + CloudOracle. Updates AmpelOracle with latest data.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_id | No |
Trigger all sync_to_ampel across TestOracle + CloudOracle. Updates AmpelOracle with latest data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_id | 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?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions triggering syncs and updating data, omitting details about side effects, permissions required, or whether the operation is destructive. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
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 two sentences long and front-loads the primary action. It is concise but lacks structural elements like parameter explanation or usage notes.
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?
Given the simple input schema (one optional parameter) and no output schema, the description should provide enough context for the agent to understand when and how to use the tool. It does not explain the meaning of 'sync_to_ampel', potential outcomes, or error scenarios, leaving gaps.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the 'entity_id' parameter or its effect. The agent receives no guidance on how to use the parameter, which is critical given no schema descriptions.
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 specifies the verb 'trigger' and the scopes 'TestOracle' and 'CloudOracle', clearly stating that it updates AmpelOracle. The purpose is clear but could be improved by explaining what 'sync_to_ampel' entails.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_workflow' or 'react_to_event'. The description lacks conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.
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 have distinct purposes, but health_check, oracle_status, and readiness_dashboard overlap in providing health/status information, which could cause confusion for an agent. The descriptions help differentiate their scope (e.g., oracle_status for 16 DORA oracles, readiness_dashboard for 23 oracles + tool count).
All tool names use consistent snake_case, lowercase format, and follow a predictable verb_noun or noun_noun pattern (e.g., board_briefing, react_to_event, onboard_entity). No mixed conventions or irregular naming.
16 tools is appropriate for a DORA compliance and monitoring server covering onboarding, health checks, assessments, gap analysis, remediation, event reactions, and workflows. Each tool has a defined role, and the count is well-scoped for the domain.
The tool set covers core compliance workflows: onboarding, assessments, health status, gap analysis, remediation planning, event reaction, and syncing. Minor gaps exist, such as lacking a tool to manually update individual compliance items, but the workflow and sync tools compensate. Overall, the coverage is strong.