atlas7_theme_discoverySubscription-gated theme, concept, and taxonomy discovery.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | No | Optional CIK. | |
| limit | No | Maximum rows. | |
| theme | No | Optional theme filter. | |
| ticker | No | Optional ticker. |
| 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 destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a meaningful non-obvious behavioral constraint: 'Subscription-gated' indicates access control requirements, which is valuable context beyond the annotations. No contradictions are present.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It packs the key qualifier ('Subscription-gated') and the resource scope into a compact form. It is appropriately concise, though it could arguably include more operational context without becoming bloated.
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?
The rich annotations and presence of an output schema reduce the burden on the description. However, the description is very brief and does not explain what 'discovery' returns, how filters interact, or when this tool is preferable to similar atlas7 tools. It is minimally viable but leaves the agent to infer important usage context.
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%, so every parameter (cik, limit, theme, ticker) already has a basic description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond labeling the overall operation as discovery, so it does not exceed the schema baseline.
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 names a specific resource ('theme, concept, and taxonomy') and indicates a discovery operation, which is clear enough to understand the tool's domain. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like atlas7_semantic_query or atlas7_field_catalog, both of which could also involve discovery-like behavior.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention typical use cases, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema alone.
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.
Significant overlap exists between atlas7_* and deltasignal_* tools for the same concepts (covenant stress, readiness, peer ranking, morning brief, pressure board), and composite workflows coexist with their low-level components. The descriptions are detailed but the sheer number of similar-scope tools makes misselection likely.
Most tools follow a consistent lower_snake_case pattern with a domain prefix (atlas7_, deltasignal_, strategix_). Verb-first names (generate_, resolve_, search_) and noun-only names (alpha_opportunities, readiness) are both used, but the convention is predictable enough to navigate.
With 81 tools, the surface is far beyond the 25–50 range considered excessive. Many tools are composites, natural-language variants, or near-duplicates that could be consolidated, creating an extreme mismatch for typical MCP server scope.
The tool surface is extensive, covering fundamentals, covenant stress, alpha screening, peer ranking, daily changes, briefs, historical ATLAS data, TripCode resolution, perp factors, synthetic ETF audit, and StrategiX rendering. Minor gaps exist (watchlist persistence, thesis lifecycle), but core research workflows are well covered.