atlas7_archive_searchSubscription-gated archive and history search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | No | Issuer CIK when ticker is not supplied. | |
| limit | No | Maximum rows to return. | |
| ticker | No | Issuer ticker, for example IREN. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'subscription-gated' access constraint, which is a useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other traits like pagination, result limits, or whether searches span multiple data sources.
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 with no filler words. It front-loads the important access constraint and clearly names the resource.
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 availability of a rich output schema and strong annotations, the description only needs to clarify the search scope, but 'archive and history' remains ambiguous. With many sibling tools, it's unclear what data sources are searched and how this differs from similar tools like atlas7_recent_history. The description is under-specified for an agent deciding which tool to invoke.
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 covers all three parameters (cik, limit, ticker) with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, and doesn't clarify how the parameters interact (e.g., whether cik or ticker is preferred).
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 the verb 'search' with the resource 'archive and history', making the basic action clear. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like atlas7_recent_history or atlas7_semantic_query, which also search for historical data. The 'subscription-gated' modifier adds a constraint but not enough to uniquely identify this tool's purpose.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative archive/history searches. The only contextual hint is 'subscription-gated', which implies an access requirement but doesn't explain selection criteria. No alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.