Compose multiple baseline ontologies into a single schema card. Pass a list of ontology slugs. Returns a merged schema card ready to use as the starting point for extraction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slugs | Yes | ||
| target_namespace | No |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'returns a merged schema card,' but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.
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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no fluff. Every sentence contributes essential information: what it does, what input to provide, and what to expect as output.
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 simple 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core function and the required parameter. However, it omits any mention of the optional 'target_namespace' and lacks behavioral context. Given the presence of an output schema and the tool's low complexity, the description is mostly complete but has clear gaps.
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 description adds meaning to the 'slugs' parameter by stating 'Pass a list of ontology slugs,' but it does not explain 'target_namespace' which appears in the schema with a default. With 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates, leaving one parameter undocumented in prose.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Compose multiple baseline ontologies into a single schema card.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add_ontology' (which adds a single ontology) and 'inspect_ontology' (which inspects). The purpose is unambiguous.
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 provides clear context for use—'ready to use as the starting point for extraction'—implying a common workflow, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. This is a clear context with no exclusions, meriting a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.