Get one full report in JSON.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobID | Yes | Job identifier of the report (example: x9z) | |
| timeStamp | Yes | Timestamp of the report in YYMMDDTHHmm format (example: 260503T0432) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool name | Yes | ||
| this request | Yes | ||
| tool collection | Yes | ||
| response content | Yes | ||
| response metadata | Yes | ||
| URLs of similar requests for web users | Yes |
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 disclose readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is a 'full report in JSON', which gives some response-format context, but it does not address pagination, size limits, or failure behavior.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It communicates the verb, resource, scope, and output format economically, and every word contributes to the meaning.
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 two-parameter schema, existing output schema, and strong safety annotations, the description is nearly complete for invocation purposes. The main missing element is explicit guidance on when to use getReport versus listReports, but the tool is simple enough that this is not a critical 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters include type and example values, so the schema already carries the semantic weight. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline for full schema coverage.
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 action ('Get'), the resource ('one full report'), and the output format ('JSON'). The phrase 'one full report' helps distinguish it from the sibling listReports by implying a detailed single-item fetch rather than a list operation, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.
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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like listReports. It relies entirely on the tool name and input schema to imply the use case, with no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct with a clear hierarchy: listReports, getReport for reports; listIssues, listViolators, listDiagnoses for progressively deeper detail. However, getReport may overlap with the other list tools in purpose, and an agent might initially confuse listViolators vs listDiagnoses without careful reading.
All tools follow a consistent verb+noun camelCase pattern: get for single resources, list for enumerations, request for actions. The naming convention is uniform and predictable, making it easy to infer tool purpose.
8 tools is well-scoped for a testing/reporting server. Each tool serves a distinct function in the workflow (test request, report retrieval, drill-down into issues, violators, diagnoses, and feature requests) without redundancy or bloat.
The tool surface covers the core lifecycle: request test, retest, list reports, inspect full report, and drill into issues, violators, and diagnoses. The only minor gap is a lack of explicit update/delete operations for reports, but this may not be essential for the server's purpose.