list_coverageList every regulator and feed being monitored, with when each was last collected successfully and how fresh the data is. Use to answer what this connector covers, or to check whether a jurisdiction is being watched before relying on an absence of results.
| 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?
Adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: lists all regulators/feeds, includes last successful collection and data freshness. readOnlyHint aligns with listing. No contradictions.
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?
Two sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with key action and resource. Every word adds value.
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?
Despite no output schema, description fully explains what is returned: regulators, feeds, last collection time, freshness. Sufficient for a listing tool with no parameters.
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?
No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%). Description doesn't need to add param meaning, but it correctly implies no filtering. Baseline 4 for zero-param tools.
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 explicitly states 'List every regulator and feed being monitored' with details on freshness and last collection. It clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings (get_regulatory_change, etc.) by focusing on coverage rather than changes.
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?
Provides explicit guidance: 'Use to answer what this connector covers, or to check whether a jurisdiction is being watched before relying on an absence of results.' This tells when to use and implies alternative tools for regulatory changes.
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 clearly distinct purpose: retrieving a single full record, listing monitored regulators, listing recent publications, and searching by topic/date. No overlap exists.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_regulatory_change, list_coverage, recent_regulatory_changes, search_regulatory_changes).
With only 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for the domain of regulatory change monitoring. Each tool serves a distinct and necessary function without excess.
The tool set covers core operations: retrieving full records with history, listing coverage, viewing recent changes, and searching. Minor gap: search lacks an explicit regulator filter, but coverage list provides context.