recommend_toolsGiven one known tool, recommend similar catalog tools via the Capability Graph (shared capabilities + protocol/category affinity).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| id_or_slug | 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by explaining the recommendation mechanism (shared capabilities + protocol/category affinity), which is more than a mere restatement of annotations.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase—known tool, similar catalog tools, Capability Graph, shared capabilities, protocol/category affinity—adds 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?
The tool is relatively simple (2 params, no nested objects), and annotations provide safety context. However, with no output schema, the description does not state what the response looks like or how the limit affects results, leaving a moderate completeness 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 0%, so the description needed to compensate. It maps id_or_slug to 'one known tool,' but it does not explain the limit parameter or how the recommendation list is shaped. With 0% schema coverage, this is a clear gap.
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 states a specific action: given one known tool, recommend similar catalog tools via the Capability Graph. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_tools (search without a starting tool) and get_capability_graph (graph inspection rather than recommendation).
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 phrase 'Given one known tool' establishes clear usage context: use this when you already have a tool and want similar options. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like search_tools for open-ended discovery.
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 clear descriptions. Potential overlap exists among search_tools, recommend_tools, list_capabilities, and get_capability_graph, but each serves a different purpose (query vs. recommendation vs. high-level list vs. relational graph). inspect_tool_server vs. get_tool (server vs. tool) and verify_web vs. understand_webpage (reachability vs. content) are clearly separated. Minor ambiguity between list_capabilities and get_capability_graph, but descriptions clarify.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., compare_tools, get_tool, search_tools, verify_web). No mixing of camelCase or inconsistent styles. The naming is uniform and predictable.
12 tools is within the ideal 3-15 range and appropriate for a directory service that provides search, retrieval, comparison, recommendation, inspection, invocation, and web verification. The count is comprehensive without being overwhelming, and each tool adds distinct value.
The tool set covers core directory operations (search, get, compare, recommend) and additional utilities (inspect, invoke, trust score, capability graph). It lacks a direct 'list all tools' or 'list all servers' endpoint, but search_tools and list_capabilities can approximate this. The inclusion of web verification and understanding tools extends beyond the catalog domain, but they are useful adjuncts. Overall, the surface is well-rounded with minor gaps.