Register an ICT-supported business function — Art. 8.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | ||
| owner | No | ||
| department | No | ||
| criticality | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| function_id | No | ||
| process_type | No | ||
| function_name | Yes | ||
| revenue_impact | No | ||
| users_affected | No | ||
| regulatory_relevance | 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 disclose behavioral traits but only states 'Register'. It does not mention side effects, id generation, required fields (beyond what the schema shows), or any consequences of registration. This is minimal, similar to the 'update_drive' baseline example.
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 very short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The 'Art. 8' reference is unclear and does not help the agent, while the rest fails to convey essential information.
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?
For a tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. The agent has no information about required versus optional fields, defaults, return values, or any API-specific behavior, making the tool effectively unusable without external documentation.
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 11 parameters with 0% description coverage, yet the description explains none of them. It adds no semantic meaning to parameters like criticality, owner, or function_name, making it impossible to know how to fill them correctly.
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 a clear verb ('Register') and resource ('ICT-supported business function'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like register_asset. However, the cryptic 'Art. 8' adds ambiguity and does not clarify the tool's purpose further.
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 alternative tools such as register_asset or asset_inventory. There are no mentions of conditions, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without direction.
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.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: inventory, registration, dependency mapping, graph retrieval, and various analyses. While blast_radius and impact_simulation are related, their descriptions clearly differentiate static impact calculation from cascade simulation.
All names use snake_case, but there is a mix of noun phrases (asset_inventory, blast_radius) and verb phrases (map_dependency, register_asset). This inconsistency in part-of-speech reduces predictability, though still readable and understandable.
Ten tools is well-scoped for an ICT dependency analysis platform. Each tool covers a meaningful operation without redundancy or bloat.
The set covers creation, reading, and analysis well, but it lacks update and delete operations for assets, dependencies, and functions. This leaves lifecycle management incomplete, forcing agents to work around missing mutations.