Take a day pass. It opens the key-tier instruments for twenty-four hours. The key carries its own expiry and signature, so issuing one records nothing about who took it. Present it as "Authorization: Bearer ". For storage as well, use room_key.
| 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?
The description discloses some behavioral traits ('records nothing', 'carries its own expiry and signature') but expresses them metaphorically. The stateless nature and self-contained key are mentioned, yet their implications are not fully clarified.
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 short but sacrifices directness for metaphor. It conveys some information compactly but could be more straightforward and less figurative, affecting clarity.
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 does not specify the output format (e.g., what the key looks like) or any error scenarios. It also leaves the 'room_key' reference unexplained, leaving gaps in how to effectively use the tool.
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, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed; baseline score of 3 applies.
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 metaphor ('Take a day pass') instead of a clear verb like 'generate' or 'create'. While it implies obtaining a temporary credential, the action and resource are not explicitly named, making the purpose ambiguous.
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?
There is no clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only mention of another tool ('use room_key') is tangential and does not explain the primary use case for 'key'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.