Register a DR/BCM test execution with results and evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | ||
| scenario | Yes | ||
| system_id | No | ||
| test_date | No | ||
| test_type | No | ||
| evidence_ref | No | ||
| issues_found | No | ||
| participants | No | ||
| rpo_achieved_hours | No | ||
| rto_achieved_hours | No | ||
| remediation_actions | 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Register' implies a write operation, but there is no detail on side effects (e.g., whether a new record is created, whether duplicates are rejected), required permissions, or error behavior. The mention of 'with results and evidence' hints at stored data but does not disclose validation or processing semantics.
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 concise sentence that immediately states the tool's primary action and key inputs. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous words, making it highly concise and scannable.
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?
This is a complex tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description is drastically under-specified: it does not explain required parameters, return values, or any of the contextual details needed for an agent to use it effectively. It is incomplete even for a basic registration tool, as it fails to address what the tool returns or how evidence is handled.
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 input schema has 11 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not compensate. It mentions 'results and evidence' which loosely maps to 'result' and 'evidence_ref', but it does not explain the meaning of other fields like 'rpo_achieved_hours', 'remediation_actions', or 'participants'. The description adds virtually no semantic meaning beyond the parameter names.
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 uses a specific verb ('Register') and identifies a clear resource ('a DR/BCM test execution'), with the additional qualifier 'with results and evidence' indicating what information is captured. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'bcm_gap_analysis' or 'register_system', which have different purposes.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or situations where a different tool might be more appropriate. The only implicit context is that it is for registering test executions, but there is no explicit 'use this when' or 'instead of' 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 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.