Get validated public context for one exact modelKey; this is model-level knowledge, not an assessment of an individual vehicle.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| modelKey | Yes | ||
| includeAnswers | No |
| 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 provide read-only, idempotent, non-destructive cues. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the returned data is 'validated' and 'public', and the scope is model-level rather than vehicle-specific. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the action, the resource, and the key scope distinction with no filler or redundancy.
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 description is adequate for a simple read-only lookup, and an output schema exists to document return values. However, the missing explanation of includeAnswers and the lack of explicit routing relative to sibling search/context tools leave a noticeable gap.
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 0%, so the description needed to explain the parameters, but it only clarifies that modelKey must be exact. The includeAnswers boolean parameter is never mentioned, leaving its purpose unclear.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get validated public context for one exact modelKey'. It also disambiguates from vehicle-level assessment by stating this is model-level knowledge, though it does not name sibling tools.
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 wording implies use when an exact modelKey is known and model-level context is needed. It does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools such as search_vehicle_knowledge or get_answer_context, nor does it describe exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.