Look up plain-English definitions of UK estate-planning terms (IHT, trusts, LPAs, probate). Omit term to list all.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| term | No | Term or partial term to match; omit to return the full glossary |
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the behavior when 'term' is omitted (list all glossary entries), which is beyond the schema. While it doesn't detail safety or performance, the simple read-only nature is clear from context, making this adequate.
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 sentences, each adding value: the first defines the tool's purpose and scope, the second clarifies the optional parameter behavior. No extraneous words; it is perfectly concise and front-loaded.
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 the simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential functionality and the special behavior of omitting the parameter. It could optionally mention the return format or suggest example terms, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.
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 already provides a clear description for the single parameter 'term' ('Term or partial term to match; omit to return the full glossary'). The tool description adds minimal new meaning—it restates the omission behavior but does not add constraints, examples, or formatting details. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('look up plain-English definitions of UK estate-planning terms') and distinguishes it from sibling tools (which are calculations, checks, and searches). The specific inclusion of example terms (IHT, trusts, LPAs, probate) provides concrete scope, and the note about omitting 'term' to list all adds further clarity.
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 usage for defining estate-planning terms but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like 'get_faqs' or 'search_guides'. No 'when not to use' or alternative suggestions are given, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
