Skip to main content
Glama

tool_catalog

Inspect local FastMCP tool registrations (count, names, schema fingerprints) and compare them with ChatGPT's visible actions to detect stale snapshots.

Instructions

Actual local SDK registration snapshot; NOT connector publication.

Use to inspect only the local FastMCP tool registration count, names and schema fingerprint. No args and no remote publication guarantee; compare against ChatGPT's visible action list for stale tool snapshots.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "tool_catalog"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a local SDK snapshot with no remote publication guarantee and explicitly says there are no args, but it does not state read-only behavior or side-effect guarantees. The limitations are clear enough for a zero-argument inspection tool.

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 short, front-loaded with the key distinction from connector publication, and avoids unnecessary detail. The second sentence is slightly dense but still earns its place by explaining scope and comparison use.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present and zero parameters, the description need not explain return values. It covers local-only scope, absence of arguments, and lack of remote publication guarantees; only a direct read-only/no-side-effects statement is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

There are zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. The description reinforces this by stating 'No args', so an agent will not search for required inputs.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: inspect the local FastMCP tool registration snapshot, including count, names, and schema fingerprint. It explicitly distinguishes this from connector publication and from ChatGPT's visible action list, so an agent can identify the tool's scope without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use to inspect only the local FastMCP tool registration...') and explicit when-not guidance ('NOT connector publication', 'no remote publication guarantee'). It also names a comparison workflow against ChatGPT's visible action list for detecting stale tool snapshots.

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