Ask a citation-grounded follow-up question about a public library review or a private session (requires a Verbaterm API key; debits the caller's plan Q&A allowance).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| question | Yes | 3–1000 characters. | |
| reviewRef | Yes | { kind: "public_path", companySlug, productSlug, policyKind } or { kind: "private", sessionId }. |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool debits an allowance and requires an API key, implying mutability. However, it does not cover error behavior, rate limits, or side effects beyond allowance deduction, leaving gaps.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with key constraints, making it highly concise and efficient.
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 complexity of a nested object parameter and no output schema, the description is marginally adequate. It explains the basic function and a key behavioral trait (allowance debit), but does not clarify the meaning of 'citation-grounded' or the two kinds of reviewRef, which could confuse the agent.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain the structure of 'reviewRef' or the meaning of 'citation-grounded' in relation to parameters.
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 ('Ask') and the resource ('a citation-grounded follow-up question about a public library review or a private session'), distinguishing it from sibling tools which focus on retrieving reviews or listing policies.
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 mentions prerequisites (Verbaterm API key) and cost (debits Q&A allowance), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it clarify that it is intended as a follow-up to an existing review or session.
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 serves a distinct purpose: public policy listing/search/review, private review lifecycle, and follow-up Q&A. Descriptions clearly differentiate sequential private review steps from public corpus operations.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, such as list_policies, start_private_review, get_private_review_result, making the set predictable.
7 tools cover the domain without redundancy: public search and retrieval, private review workflow (start, progress, result), and a Q&A follow-up. The count is well-scoped for the stated purpose.
Core lifecycle is covered: public listing, search, review retrieval; private review creation, polling, result retrieval; and Q&A. Minor gaps like cancellation of private reviews or listing of past sessions are non-critical.
