atlas7_pressure_boardSubscription-gated semantic pressure board.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum rows to return. | |
| stress_field | No | Optional stress field override for stress-ranked tools. | |
| signal_filter | No | Optional alpha signal text filter. |
| 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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds 'subscription-gated' and 'semantic' as useful access and query-mode context beyond the annotations. However, no additional behavioral details (e.g., response format, data scope, auth specifics) are disclosed, so it remains minimally transparent.
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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with zero wasted words. However, a single noun phrase is under-specified for a tool with three optional parameters and multiple sibling tools; it lacks the structured content needed to be genuinely helpful.
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?
Despite having annotations, a complete schema, and an output schema, the description fails to convey what the 'pressure board' actually provides or how it differs from similarly named tools. Given the large sibling list (e.g., atlas7_signal_board, atlas7_top_stress, deltasignal_pressure_board), this description is not complete enough for an agent to select the correct tool.
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 100% description coverage for all three parameters, including limits, stress field override, and signal filter. Since the schema already documents each parameter, the tool description adds no extra semantic value for parameters, and the baseline of 3 applies.
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 semantic pressure board' is a noun phrase with no verb and largely restates the tool's name/title. It does not specify what action the tool performs (e.g., retrieves, lists, computes) or what a 'pressure board' is, making the purpose vague.
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 usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus siblings like atlas7_signal_board or deltasignal_pressure_board, and no exclusions or alternative recommendations. The only hint is 'subscription-gated,' implying an access prerequisite.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.