dismiss_setup_checklistHides the 'Get set up' card on the household dashboard (e.g. when the owner says they don't need it). Pass show=true to bring it back.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| show | 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 are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly states that the tool hides the card and explicitly discloses reversibility via show=true. It does not mention persistence or scope, but for a simple boolean display toggle this is reasonable.
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 only two short sentences and every part earns its place: the action, the example context, and the parameter behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and has no redundant wording.
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 one optional boolean parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the trigger, the effect, and how to reverse it. It would be slightly more complete if it explicitly stated the default behavior for omitted show, but overall the description is sufficient for an agent to select and call the tool 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the show parameter itself. It does by stating that show=true brings the card back and that the default action is to hide it. A small remaining ambiguity is what happens when show is omitted entirely, but the tool name and phrasing make hiding the likely default.
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 ('Hides') and a specific resource ('the 'Get set up' card on the household dashboard'). It also gives a realistic use case ('when the owner says they don't need it'), which makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly distinct from all sibling tools.
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 clear context for when to use the tool and even shows the reverse operation with 'Pass show=true to bring it back.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but no sibling tool appears to handle the setup checklist, so the absence of an explicit alternative is not a meaningful gap.
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 target a distinct resource and action, with detailed descriptions that clarify boundaries. The main confusable pair is run_agent_chef vs next_actions, which both return the due-action checklist and operating instructions, differing only by trigger context. propose_recipes vs add_candidates are also related but clearly separated by phase (initiating a cycle vs appending during feedback).
The overwhelming majority follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_, update_, set_, add_, record_, remove_), which is highly predictable. Minor deviations include next_actions being a bare noun phrase rather than get_next_actions, and favorite_recipe using 'favorite' as a verb instead of something like toggle_favorite.
At 34 tools, the surface is heavy for an agent to select from, exceeding the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. The domain is genuinely broad, but several utility and meta tools (dismiss_setup_checklist, record_schedule, get_connected_agents, get_instructions) and overlapping entry points (run_agent_chef, next_actions) inflate the count and could be consolidated without losing capability.
The full weekly lifecycle is covered end-to-end: propose, vote, feedback, add candidates, lock in, shop, order, cook, rate, and mark done. Recipe, member, ingredient, and preference management all have solid get/update/create coverage. Minor gaps include no way to delete a recipe, remove a candidate from an active ballot, or cancel a week beyond reopen_voting, but these are work-aroundable and don't create dead ends.