The register as a PROMPT: ratified language constructs (kind:protocol excluded — machinery, not prose), token-budgeted, version+digest stamped — fetch it into working context to adopt in one call. Mirrors /register.txt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses token-budgeting, version+digest stamping, and exclusion of kind:protocol. However, it does not clarify what 'token-budgeted' means operationally (e.g., truncation, rejection), or mention error behavior or access requirements. Some useful detail but incomplete.
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 and front-loads the key purpose ('The register as a PROMPT'). The first sentence is dense with specialized terminology but still efficient. No wasted words, though clarity could be improved with slightly simpler phrasing.
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?
With no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. It mentions token-budgeted and that it mirrors /register.txt, which provides some expectation but is vague. For a simple fetch tool this is adequate but not complete; an AI agent might need more detail on the format or constraints of the returned prompt.
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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none are needed. It appropriately describes the purpose without redundant param details.
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 states the tool retrieves the register as a PROMPT, specifying that it contains ratified language constructs with exclusions (kind:protocol). The verb 'get' and resource 'register pack' are distinct, and the description differentiates it from siblings like 'get_register' (presumably raw) by adding token-budgeted and stamped details.
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 implies the tool is for fetching the register into working context for adoption, and mentions it mirrors /register.txt. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives like get_register, but the context 'as a PROMPT' signals when to use it. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisites, keeping it slightly above average.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have unique resource nouns, but several clusters overlap in purpose: get_progression, get_decisions, get_queue, and get_dispute_triage all describe next-action/status views, and the flagship/runbook/register families require careful reading to distinguish. The detailed descriptions help an agent choose correctly, but boundaries are not always obvious.
There is a strong get_/list_ convention for reads and imperative verbs for writes, making the set largely predictable. Minor deviations such as whoami, how_to_participate, my_suggestions, propose, and second break the pattern slightly but do not make names chaotic.
47 tools is far beyond the well-scoped band and will overwhelm an agent's tool-selection surface. Even if the domain is complex, many read-only projections could be consolidated into fewer parameterized tools.
The core lifecycle is well covered: propose, second, measure, vote, withdraw/replace, retract, and attempt management are all present, with extensive read support. Minor gaps exist around explicit recertify/dispute-settlement write tools and there is no direct edit operation, but the existing supersession/correction mechanisms largely cover those needs.
