List this tenant's published tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tenant_key | No | The key `signup` returned. Required only when this connection carries no Authorization: Bearer header -- when both are present, the header wins. |
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?
With no annotations supplied, the description bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation and 'this tenant's published tools' conveys scoping, but the description does not explicitly state that nothing is mutated, nor does it describe ordering, pagination, or error behavior. Annotations are absent, so a 3 reflects that the basics are present but the behavioral details are thin.
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 one tight sentence that front-loads the essential purpose. There is no filler or repetition of the tool name, and every word earns its place.
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 simple read-only listing tool with zero required parameters, the description plus the tenant_key schema note is nearly complete. The main missing information is the return format or pagination, but no output schema exists and the call would still be correctly selected and invoked with the provided text.
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 single parameter, tenant_key, has 100% schema-description coverage: the schema already explains where the key comes from and the precedence between the Authorization header and the key. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 is a clear, specific statement: 'List this tenant's published tools.' It names the verb (list), the resource (published tools), and the scope (this tenant), which separates it from sibling tools like host.secret_list or host.tool_logs on first read.
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 intended use is implied by the active verb and 'published tools' scope, but the description never explicitly states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as host.tool_publish or host.tool_run. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided; only the tenant_key schema description gives auth-related usage context.
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 target a clearly distinct resource or lifecycle stage, with billing, secret, and tool-publishing groups nicely separated. The main ambiguity is among host.tool_call, host.tool_test, and host.tool_run, which all invoke a published tool in slightly different modes; the descriptions clarify this, but the names alone could mislead an agent.
The namespace prefixes billing.* and host.* provide a consistent organizational pattern, and host.tool_* tools use a predictable resource-action style. Deviations like signup, host.quickstart, host.usage, and host.whoami break the pattern, but they are few and still readable.
At 17 tools, the server is slightly over the typical well-scoped 3-15 range, but the breadth is justified by the multi-tenant hosting domain: signup, billing, tool lifecycle, secrets, debugging, and usage observability each need dedicated tools. Every tool has a plausible role, so the count feels reasonable rather than bloated.
The tool lifecycle is well covered with publish, list, test, run, call, logs, and remove, and billing/usage/signup are present. Notable gaps remain, though: secret_set has no corresponding secret_delete, there is no tenant update/delete operation, and host.registry_publish references admin.tenant_verify_namespace, which is not exposed in this tool set.