atlas7_company_report_inputsSubscription-gated structured Company Report input bundle.
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'Subscription-gated' access constraint, which is useful context, but does not disclose what the tool actually returns or how it behaves beyond that. No contradiction exists.
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 sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. It is concise yet content-poor, offering only a label rather than actionable context. This is neither a model of efficient clarity nor an egregious length issue.
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?
Even though annotations and an output schema exist, the description leaves the tool's fundamental purpose ambiguous. An agent cannot tell what data this tool provides, how it relates to a Company Report, or when to choose it over similar 'input' tools in the sibling list. The overall context remains incomplete.
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 100%: cik, limit, and ticker each have clear descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond calling it a 'bundle', so it does not elevate beyond the schema baseline. There is no additional semantic nuance for the agent.
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 'Subscription-gated structured Company Report input bundle' is vague and noun-heavy. It restates the tool name ('input bundle' ≈ 'inputs') without specifying an action or outcome. It does not distinguish this from sibling tools like atlas7_morning_brief_inputs or deltasignal_company_report.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'Subscription-gated' hints at a prerequisite but does not explain the intended context, such as preparing data for a company report or enriching issuer analysis. Sibling tools with similar patterns remain undifferentiated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.