check_triggerDemo tool — simulate whether a demo policy's parametric trigger is met. Returns a simulated observed weather value, trigger threshold, outcome, and data source. No payment is accepted and no real policy or settlement is affected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| policy_id | Yes | Policy ID returned by bind_policy. |
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, so the description doesn't need to state read-only. It adds valuable context: 'No payment is accepted and no real policy or settlement is affected' and details the simulated output (observed value, threshold, outcome, data source). This goes beyond the annotation and clarifies the tool's simulated nature and return components.
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 redundant words. The first sentence immediately states the core function and outputs, and the second adds the critical caveat about demo realism. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning every word.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It enumerates the return elements (observed value, threshold, outcome, data source) and clarifies the demo nature. It doesn't detail error handling or exact output format, but for a demo tool this is not a significant gap.
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 policy_id documented as 'Policy ID returned by bind_policy.' The description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameter; it only mentions the tool's purpose, not how policy_id is used. Since the schema fully covers the parameter, 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: 'simulate whether a demo policy's parametric trigger is met.' It specifies the action (check trigger), the resource (demo policy), and the output components (observed weather value, threshold, outcome, data source). This is distinct from siblings like assess_weather_risk (assessment) or get_policy_status (status), so it stands alone.
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 identifies the tool as a 'demo tool' but offers no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools or state conditions for using this over assess_weather_risk or get_parametric_quote. The demo context is implied, but there's no clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use instruction.
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 role in the parametric insurance workflow: risk assessment, quoting, binding, trigger checking, policy status, and carrier listing. There is no overlap or ambiguity in purpose, and the entry point is clearly marked.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (assess_weather_risk, bind_policy, check_trigger, get_parametric_quote, get_policy_status, list_carriers). No mixed conventions or irregularities.
Six tools is well-scoped for a demo parametric insurance server, covering the essential lifecycle steps without redundancy or unnecessary expansion. Each tool has a clear purpose.
The tool set covers the primary flow: assess risk, get quote, bind policy, check trigger, and retrieve status. It lacks update/cancel policy operations, but for a demo environment focused on quoting and triggering, this is a minor gap.