Returns the base ReoGridJsonDocument schema and an index of advanced features. The base schema already covers cell values, formulas, styling, borders and merges — those need no follow-up call. Call get_feature_spec(feature) only for a name listed in the returned features[] array, passing features[].name verbatim.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the return structure (base schema plus features[] array) and notes that the base schema already covers certain aspects. It implies a read-only operation, and while it doesn't discuss errors or side effects, the tool's simplicity (no parameters) makes the behavior sufficiently 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?
Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the primary purpose; the second adds usage guidance. All information is essential and front-loaded.
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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned and how to proceed with the returned data. It mentions the features[] array and instructs on calling get_feature_spec. This is complete for the agent's needs.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers 100%. The description adds no parameter info because none exist, but it does clarify the structure of the returned features array, which is relevant to how the tool is used.
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 clearly states what the tool does: 'Returns the base ReoGridJsonDocument schema and an index of advanced features.' It specifies the resource (schema and feature index) and differentiates from the sibling tool get_feature_spec by explicitly limiting that tool's usage.
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?
It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: the base schema covers cells, formulas, styling, borders, merges, so no follow-up needed. It also directs calling get_feature_spec only for names in the features[] array, passing the name verbatim, which effectively states when not to use that alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
