Pause and reason about a situation. No side effects, no data changes — just structured thinking. Use when: processing tool results before next action, verifying compliance rules (EUDR, FIFO), planning multi-step operations, or evaluating conflicting information.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| thought | Yes | Your reasoning, analysis, or plan. Write out your thinking step by step. |
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, and it explicitly states 'No side effects, no data changes — just structured thinking.' This clearly communicates the tool's non-mutating, safe nature, which is the only significant behavioral trait for a reasoning helper.
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 only two sentences long and front-loads the core purpose, immediately followed by the behavioral disclaimer and the 'Use when' list. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose with no redundancy or filler.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers the necessary context: what the tool does, that it has no side effects, and precisely when to use it. Nothing material is missing for an agent to select and invoke it 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 schema already provides full coverage (100%) for the only parameter, 'thought', describing it as the agent's reasoning, analysis, or plan. The description adds use-case context but no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb phrase 'Pause and reason' and identifies the resource as 'a situation', then defines the tool as 'structured thinking'. It clearly distinguishes the tool from all sibling data-query tools by emphasizing that it performs no data fetching or side effects.
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 explicitly lists four concrete scenarios: processing tool results, verifying compliance rules, planning multi-step operations, and evaluating conflicting information. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the contrast with the query-focused sibling tools is obvious and the 'Use when' list provides strong guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.