lookup_failure_modeFind exact AFMR 1.0 failure-mode records by permanent ID or bounded text query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Exact permanent family identifier, for example AFMR-F010. | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | Text matched against ID, name, definition, and class. |
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?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds limited behavioral context. The phrase 'exact' and 'bounded text query' aligns with idempotent behavior but doesn't reveal details like pagination or search boundaries beyond schema constraints.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word serves a purpose. No 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?
Given the simple tool (3 params, no output schema, full annotations), the description covers core usage. It lacks details on return format or relationship to other tools, but completeness is adequate for a read-only lookup with rich schema annotations.
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 description mentions 'permanent ID' and 'bounded text query', mapping to id and query parameters. However, the limit parameter (with default 5, max 10) is not explained beyond what the schema provides (default, min, max). With 67% schema coverage, the description adds some but not full compensation.
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 verb 'Find', the resource 'AFMR failure-mode records', and the two methods: by permanent ID or bounded text query. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like discover_afmr, which likely serves broader discovery.
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 implies use for exact lookups but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like discover_afmr or the other sibling tools. No guidance on when not to use or what contexts are appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: one returns canonical AFMR specs, two return specific contracts (lift evidence and reputation attestation), and one looks up failure modes. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: discover_afmr, get_lift_evidence_contract, get_reputation_attestation_contract, lookup_failure_mode. No deviations or mixed conventions.
Four tools are well-scoped for a discovery service. Each tool earns its place, covering key functions without being too few or too many.
The tool set covers the main aspects of AFMR discovery: general specs, two key contracts, and failure mode lookup. There are no obvious gaps for the stated domain.