Execute a read-only GLM agent loop in an approved directory to inspect files, search text, and list contents without writing or running commands.
Run a bounded, read-only GLM tool-use loop within an approved directory. It cannot write files or run arbitrary commands.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | ||
| dryRun | No | ||
| context | No | ||
| allowedTools | No | ||
| createSession | No | ||
| maxIterations | No | ||
| workingDirectory | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses key behavioral traits: read-only, bounded, no file writes or arbitrary commands. However, without annotations, more details (e.g., error handling, return behavior) would be needed for full transparency.
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?
Two sentences, very concise and front-loaded. However, given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations), additional detail would be warranted; this borders on under-specification.
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?
Considering the parameter count (7), lack of annotations, missing output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain how to configure the tool or interpret results.
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 0% and the description provides no information about parameters like task, dryRun, context, allowedTools, etc. The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema's bare structure.
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 runs a bounded, read-only GLM tool-use loop within an approved directory, and explicitly notes it cannot write files or run arbitrary commands. This differentiates it from siblings like glm_5_run_approved_command and glm_5_apply_approved_patch.
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?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when-not to use or which sibling to choose instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/magnexis/LLM-bridge-mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server