Register a business-critical ICT system for BCM tracking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | ||
| owner | No | ||
| provider | No | ||
| system_id | No | ||
| department | No | ||
| criticality | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| system_name | Yes | ||
| failover_site | No | ||
| backup_location | No | ||
| backup_frequency | No | ||
| data_classification | 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?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, idempotency, or behavior on duplicate entries, which is critical for a registration/write operation.
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 a single, direct sentence with no fluff or extraneous information. It is concise but extremely sparse given the tool's parameter complexity.
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 12-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, a one-sentence description is drastically incomplete. It lacks usage context, parameter explanations, and any behavioral details, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly.
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?
With 12 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no parameter semantics. It doesn't clarify required fields, value formats, or the meaning of fields like criticality, failover_site, or backup_frequency.
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 explicitly states the action (register), the object (business-critical ICT system), and the purpose (BCM tracking), clearly distinguishing it from sibling analysis tools like bcm_gap_analysis and health_check.
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?
It provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no explicit exclusions. The only contextual hint is 'for BCM tracking,' which implies usage but doesn't explain scenarios.
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 targets a distinct function: registration, BIA setting, test logging, readiness status, specific compliance checks, and evidence collection. Even the check-type tools (bcm_gap_analysis, crisis_plan_check, rto_rpo_check) address clearly separated aspects.
All names use lowercase with underscores, and most follow a verb_noun pattern (register_system, set_bia, test_register). A few noun-only names (evidence_bundle, scenario_library, recovery_status) deviate slightly, but the style remains consistent and readable.
With 10 tools, the set is well-scoped for a BCM/DR compliance server. Each tool serves a necessary part of the workflow—system registration, BIA, testing, checks, and evidence—without redundancy.
The server covers the core BCM lifecycle: register systems, set BIA, run tests, check compliance, and bundle evidence. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update/delete for systems or BIA), but these are workaround-able using set_bia and are not critical for the stated purpose.