Explain one existing Dutch vehicle term using an exact term key or supported normalized term form; no fuzzy generation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| termKey | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| sources | Yes | ||
| coverage | No | ||
| evidence | Yes | ||
| freshness | Yes | ||
| citationUrl | No | ||
| limitations | Yes | ||
| schemaVersion | Yes | ||
| knowledgeVersion | Yes |
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 signal read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those hints: the term must already exist, and the tool will not fabricate or fuzzy-match terms. It does not describe failure behavior for unknown keys, but the output schema likely covers result shape.
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 that delivers the core requirement and an important behavioral constraint with no filler. Every word earns its place.
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-parameter tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the key invocation requirement and an important limitation. The main gap is that 'supported normalized term form' is left underspecified, and no example term key is provided, but the overall context is sufficient for basic correct invocation.
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 schema only provides a regex pattern and length constraints for termKey, with 0% description coverage. The tool description compensates by explaining that the key must be an exact existing term key or a supported normalized form, and warns against fuzzy generation. This adds meaningful conceptual meaning, though examples of normalized forms would strengthen it.
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 action ('Explain'), the specific resource ('one existing Dutch vehicle term'), and the exact-match constraint ('no fuzzy generation'). This distinguishes it from sibling knowledge-search tools like search_vehicle_knowledge, which likely handle broader or fuzzy retrieval.
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 states the required input condition: an exact term key or a supported normalized term form. It also tells the agent not to attempt fuzzy generation. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for cases where the agent lacks an exact key.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.