public_facade_self_check
Return the facade tool manifest and deployment metadata.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
SVV-Schatzoekers Public Selling Agent
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The use of 'Return' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, nor does it describe error scenarios or any security implications. For a simple retrieval tool, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of seven words, front-loaded with the verb 'Return'. Every word is essential, with no filler or repetition. It is extremely concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, output schema exists), the description covers the core functionality. However, it lacks context about what 'facade tool manifest' means, when to invoke this tool, and how it relates to sibling tools like `ops_status_summary` and `latest_memory_snapshot`. The output schema can explain return values, but usage context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are needed. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not hinder understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('facade tool manifest and deployment metadata'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like `ops_status_summary` and `startup_operator_snapshot` by naming a unique output type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it returns, without any context on use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The tool's name hints at a self-check purpose, but that is not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
Some tools overlap in purpose: latest_memory_snapshot, ops_status_summary, and startup_operator_snapshot all provide some form of current state, and agent_query overlaps with search for information retrieval. However, the descriptions clarify distinct intents (e.g., bounded vs. full document search, operational vs. canonical snapshot), so boundaries are mostly clear.
Naming Consistency3/5
All tool names use lowercase snake_case, but they do not follow a consistent verb_noun pattern. Some names are single verbs (fetch, search) while others are noun compounds (latest_memory_snapshot, ops_status_summary). This mixed style is readable but not predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for a public-facing query and status facade. Each tool serves a distinct role (query, search, fetch, snapshots, status, self-check), and the count feels appropriate without excess or deficiency.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the core needs of a read-only public facade: asking questions, searching documents, fetching content, and retrieving status/snapshots. There is some redundancy among snapshot tools, but no major missing operation for the stated purpose.