list_servicesAevum Security's cybersecurity services: slug, name and a one-line summary. The slug is the service identifier accepted by get_service_details and submit_enquiry.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety traits. It adds value by disclosing the exact output structure (slug, name, summary) and the semantic meaning of slug as a service identifier, which goes beyond the 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?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary content (list of services and fields). The second sentence adds essential cross-referencing to sibling tools without any fluff. Every word earns its place.
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 list tool with no parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description fully covers what the tool returns and how it fits into the broader workflow. It explains the return fields and the role of the slug, making it complete for its complexity.
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 and 100% coverage (trivially), so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because there are none to describe, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.
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's purpose: to list Aevum Security's cybersecurity services, specifying the exact fields returned (slug, name, one-line summary). It also distinguishes the tool by noting that the slug is the identifier used by sibling tools get_service_details and submit_enquiry, making it unique among the siblings.
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 when to use this tool: to obtain service identifiers (slugs) that are needed for subsequent calls to get_service_details and submit_enquiry. It doesn't explicitly state 'use this when you need to browse or select a service,' but the relationship is clear from the slug mention, which provides practical usage context.
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.
Each tool has a clear, unique purpose: list services, get details on one service, and submit an enquiry. There is no overlap in functionality, so an agent can easily choose the right tool.
All tool names follow the same verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, submit_), making the API predictable and easy to navigate.
With only 3 tools, the server is tightly focused on its purpose: browsing services and submitting an enquiry. Every tool is necessary and no redundancy exists.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of the intended use case: discovering services, getting details, and initiating contact. Since enquiries cannot be withdrawn, no update/delete operations are required, so there are no obvious gaps.