Live Middle East Conflict Monitor snapshot: official alerts, geolocated OSINT events, active story clusters, EN/AR theater brief, and per-tier freshness (degraded flag). Pass since={seq} for envelope deltas. Streaming clients can use SSE at https://asha.news/api/conflict/stream instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | No | Envelope sequence cursor; returns only envelopes with seq greater than this. |
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 provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the 'degraded flag', 'per-tier freshness' semantics, and the envelope/delta mechanism — valuable operational context. It doesn't address auth, rate limits, or failure behavior, but for a snapshot tool the transparency is above average.
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 dense sentences, every phrase adds value — content inventory, freshness semantics, cursor usage, and an actionable alternative URL. Perfectly front-loaded and zero wasted words.
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?
For a single-optional-parameter snapshot tool with no output schema, the description covers the key facets: data contents, freshness/degradation, delta retrieval, and streaming alternative. It slightly over-delivers given the tool's simplicity, though it could have hinted at the relationship to conflict_events or polling cadence.
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 coverage is 100% — 'since' is already well-defined as an 'Envelope sequence cursor; returns only envelopes with seq greater than this.' The description's 'Pass since={seq} for envelope deltas' mostly restates this with the 'envelope deltas' framing. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 a specific verb+resource ('Live Middle East Conflict Monitor snapshot') and enumerates its scoped content (official alerts, geolocated OSINT events, story clusters, theater brief, freshness flag). It's specific and informative, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like conflict_events, so it falls short of a 5.
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: 'Pass since={seq} for envelope deltas' explains incremental usage, and 'Streaming clients can use SSE... instead' explicitly points to an alternative integration path. It stops short of naming when to use sibling tools like conflict_events versus this one, so not a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.