Geolocated Conflict Monitor events (strike, explosion, intercept, movement, statement, thermal_confirmation) with severity, verification status, and EN/AR summaries. Filter with bbox=w,s,e,n; pass since={seq} for deltas.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bbox | No | Bounding box "w,s,e,n" (lon/lat degrees), e.g. 34,29,36,34. | |
| limit | No | Max events (default 50). | |
| since | No | Envelope sequence cursor for delta polls. |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes data contents and filter parameters but does not disclose that it is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, or rate limits. There is no mention of side effects or response behavior beyond raw data retrieval.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes all essential usage hints without redundancy. Every clause adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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's modest complexity (3 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers event types, summary attributes, and filtering/delta usage. It does not mention ordering, pagination behavior (beyond limit), or error states, but these are not critical for basic usage. Slight gap in not referencing related sibling tools, but overall adequate.
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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the bbox format ('w,s,e,n') and the purpose of 'since' for delta polls, which goes beyond the schema's generic field descriptions.
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 identifies the resource (geolocated conflict events) and specifies event types, data attributes (severity, verification, summaries), and filtering options. It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like conflict_state by focusing on event-level data with geolocation.
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?
Provides clear context for usage: filtering by bbox and delta polling via since. Implies it is for retrieving event data, but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool names are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.