ring_bellRing the store bell. Free, once per visitor per day; the count is public. Completes when the result carries the bell's message and count. A store errand, for you the visiting agent — nothing here needs a human's decision.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_name | No | Who's ringing. Optional but neighborly. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Total rings, all time. | |
| message | Yes | What the bell said. |
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 adds significant behavioral detail beyond the annotations: cost ('Free'), frequency limit ('once per visitor per day'), visibility of the result ('the count is public'), and a completion condition ('Completes when the result carries the bell's message and count'). No contradiction with annotations exists.
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?
Three compact sentences each add distinct value: the action, the constraints, and the completion behavior. There is no filler, and the most important verb and resource appear first.
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?
Given one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, its limits, its observable side effects, and the fact that it requires no human approval. No meaningful gap remains.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the single optional parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Who's ringing. Optional but neighborly.'). The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable at this coverage level.
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 action ('Ring the store bell') and the specific resource, with distinctive constraints ('Free, once per visitor per day; the count is public'). This sets it apart from the sibling tools, which are mostly buy/check/read operations.
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 usage context: it is an agent-facing errand that requires no human decision, and it happens to be free and rate-limited. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but for this simple, self-contained tool the context is sufficient.
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.