Search subcontractor documents by sub name or document type. Returns matching records with expiry date and status (on file, needs check, not received, lapsed).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Text to match against subcontractor or document type (case-insensitive; shorthand like "COI" or "workers comp" works). Omit to list everything. |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (expiry date and status with enumerated values like 'on file' and 'lapsed'), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, pagination, or any side effects, though the search semantics imply a safe read-only operation.
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 with no fluff. It directly states the search action and the output format, and every sentence 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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and output. It does not mention that omitting the query lists everything, but that is covered in the schema. A brief note about omitting the query in the description would have made it more complete, but the current level is sufficient for this simplicity.
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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter description already covering case-insensitivity and shorthand tokens like 'COI'. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 clearly states the tool searches subcontractor documents by sub name or document type, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like export_compliance_report, get_compliance_summary, and list_uninsured_subs because it focuses on finding specific documents rather than summarizing or exporting.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides no exclusions or references to sibling tools, and the usage context is only implied by the search verb. No guidance is given on when to choose this over get_compliance_summary or list_uninsured_subs.
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 serves a distinct query purpose: full report export, summary totals, expiring documents, currently uninsured subcontractors, and free-text document search. Even where topics overlap (expiring vs. uninsured), the descriptions clearly separate the timeframes and states.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lowercase snake_case (export, get, get, list, search). The verbs and nouns are descriptive and align with each tool's function.
With only 5 tools, the set is tight and well-scoped for a compliance reporting server. Each tool covers a necessary query type without redundancy, and the count is within the ideal range.
The read-side is comprehensively covered: summary, expiring, uninsured, search, and full export. However, there are no write tools (e.g., to update document status or initiate requests), which could be a gap if the server is meant to support the full compliance workflow. For a read-only reporting tool, this is nearly complete.