Get the network summary
Current host verdict counts, open incidents and anomalies in the last 24h, plus how fresh the Peppol Directory export behind every other endpoint is.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint: it specifies the aggregation scope (last 24h), the types of data returned, and that the freshness measurement refers to the Peppol Directory export behind every other endpoint. However, it does not detail the output shape or any aggregation quirks, which could matter when an agent interprets the result.
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 concise, information-dense sentences. The main action is front-loaded, and every clause adds distinct information about the tool's output without redundancy.
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?
For a parameterless, read-only summary tool, the description covers the essential output components and time window. It is slightly incomplete only in not clarifying how this relates to the generic get_summary sibling, but the content list makes the scope understandable.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema already communicates everything needed. The description's mention of the time horizon and data categories adds mild context, but no parameter-specific semantics are required.
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 identifies a specific resource ('network summary') and enumerates the exact contents: host verdict counts, open incidents, anomalies in the last 24h, plus freshness of the Peppol Directory export. This makes the tool's function clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling get_summary.
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 a use case (top-level network overview) by listing aggregate counts and recent anomalies, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions relative to other get_* tools. An agent must infer when this summary is appropriate rather than being told directly.
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.
Most tools are cleanly separated by resource type: participants, access points, hosts, providers, incidents, anomalies, and SLA each have their own get/list vocabulary. The main ambiguous pairs are get_provider_sla vs get_provider_sla_by_key, list_providers vs list_public_providers, and get_summary vs get_network_summary.
The overall get_/list_ verb_noun pattern is consistent and readable, and plural/singular resource names are mostly clear. There are a few exceptions: get_provider_sla and get_country_providers return collections despite using get_, and list_provider_certs is more of an aggregate posture endpoint than a simple list.
43 tools is well beyond the typical well-scoped MCP surface and will make the tool set harder for an agent to navigate defensibly. The tools are systematically grouped, but this looks like a broad REST API surface rather than a compact, purpose-fit MCP server.
For a read-only monitoring and directory domain, the coverage is unusually complete: list/detail endpoints, histories, SLA tables, churn breakdowns, anomalies, incidents, adoption aggregates, software landscape, and quality checks are all represented. The drill-down routes such as churn totals to churn participants also avoid dead ends.
