glitch_checkRun per-step checks to verify that guardrails are present and refuse broken cases, issuing a receipt for each passing step.
Run one step's check, or all of them. A step passes only when its artifact is present, runs, AND still refuses a deliberately broken case. Returns a receipt per passing step. Reads only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| step | No | one of: rules, lanes, fleet, gates, floor, plan |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states 'Reads only', which aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation. It also explains the passing condition and that receipts are returned per passing step, adding behavioral detail beyond the annotations.
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 compact, with three short sentences that convey the action, the condition for passing, and the return type. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no extraneous information.
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?
The description gives enough context to understand the tool's behavior, including the return format (receipts per passing step) and the passing criteria. However, it does not detail the receipt structure or edge cases, but the simplicity of the tool mitigates this 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?
The schema fully documents the single parameter 'step' with an enum list and description. The tool description does not add additional meaning about the parameter, so it relies on the schema, which is comprehensive.
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 that the tool runs checks for a step or all steps, with a specific passing condition and a return of receipts. It is specific enough to understand the core functionality, though the term 'check' is not elaborated on.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools glitch_status or glitch_ledger_tail. There is no mention of alternatives or conditions for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.