Skip to main content
Glama

Inspect

inspect

Maintain colony health: review anomalies, manage data update proposals, capture daily snapshots, and evaluate API designs.

Instructions

Internal admin tool for colony health. Inspect anomalies, manage update proposals, take snapshots, and evaluate MCP design patterns. Modes: queue (view anomalies), submit (verify anomaly), check_updates (service changelog), propose (PR-model data update), review (approve/reject proposal), pending (view proposal queue), snapshot (capture daily metrics), evaluate (rate API design quality). Mode is auto-detected from params or set explicitly.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoExplicit mode override. Auto-detected from params if omitted.
queue_statusNo[queue] Filter by status (default: open)
queue_severityNo[queue] Filter by severity (default: all)
queue_service_idNo[queue] Filter by specific service ID
queue_limitNo[queue] Max results (default: 10)
inspection_idNo[submit/queue] Inspection ID. With verdict → submit mode. Alone → queue lookup.
verdictNo[submit] Your finding: confirmed, false_alarm, resolved, or partially_resolved
findingsNo[submit] What you found during inspection (PII auto-masked)
tested_workaroundNo[submit] Workaround you tested, if any
workaround_worksNo[submit] Did the tested workaround work?
check_service_idNo[check_updates] Service name or ID to check for changes. Triggers check_updates mode.
since_daysNo[check_updates] How many days back to look (default: 30)
propose_service_idNo[propose] Service ID to propose changes for
fieldNo[propose] Single field to update (shorthand). Allowed: description, category, tags, mcp_endpoint, mcp_status, api_url, api_auth_method, namespace.
new_valueNo[propose] New value for the field (used with field shorthand)
changesNo[propose] Object of field->new_value pairs (alternative to field+new_value)
reasonNo[propose] Why this change is needed
evidence_urlNo[propose] URL to source (API docs, changelog)
change_typeNo[propose] Type of change (default: update)
agent_idNo[propose/review] Agent identifier for attribution
update_idNo[review] Proposal ID to review. With approved → review mode.
approvedNo[review] true = approve, false = reject
reviewerNo[review] Who is reviewing (default: michie)
review_noteNo[review] Optional review comment
pending_statusNo[pending] Filter by status. Triggers pending mode when present.
pending_service_idNo[pending] Filter by service ID
pending_limitNo[pending] Max results (default: 20)
snapshot_service_idNo[snapshot] Service to snapshot. Triggers snapshot mode. Omit value to snapshot ALL.
snapshot_dateNo[snapshot] Date to snapshot (YYYY-MM-DD, default: today)
evaluate_service_idNo[evaluate] Service to evaluate. Triggers evaluate mode.
api_quality_scoreNo[evaluate] API design quality: RESTful conventions, naming, status codes (0.0-1.0)
doc_completeness_scoreNo[evaluate] Documentation quality: completeness, accuracy, examples (0.0-1.0)
auth_stability_scoreNo[evaluate] Auth reliability: token refresh, expiry handling, OAuth flow (0.0-1.0)
error_clarity_scoreNo[evaluate] Error response quality: clear codes, actionable messages (0.0-1.0)
evaluate_notesNo[evaluate] Free-text notes on design strengths/weaknesses
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent behavior. The description lists write modes (submit, propose, review, snapshot) but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or rate limits. Minimal additional value beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with purpose, lists all 8 modes concisely, and ends with auto-detection note. It is efficient given the complexity of 35 parameters, though a bullet list could improve readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers modes and parameter usage adequately due to rich schema, but lacks details on return values, error handling, and prerequisites. No output schema means agents must infer response structure.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds high-level mode context and auto-detection hints, but does not deepen understanding of individual parameters beyond what schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool is for colony health inspection with multiple modes (queue, submit, propose, review, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze, lookup, report, and search_services by specifying internal admin tasks, but does not explicitly contrast them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides guidance on mode auto-detection and explicit parameter usage. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (siblings) and does not mention prerequisites or failure scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/kansei-link/kansei-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server