Plan complete camping trips based on destination, weather, experience level, group size, budget, and activities. Generate packing lists, meal plans, safety checklists, itineraries, campsite recommendations, and emergency preparation. Expected Runtime: ~30s.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions an expected runtime (~30s) and lists the generated outputs, which gives some insight into its behavior. However, it does not disclose whether the tool modifies any data, requires specific permissions, or has side effects beyond generating a plan. For a planning tool, this is a moderate gap, so a score of 3 reflects partial transparency.
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 concise—two sentences—with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and inputs, and the second lists outputs and runtime. Every clause adds value, and the structure is efficient for an agent scanning for purpose.
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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, multiple output types) and the lack of annotations or parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly populate all required fields. It lists inputs and outputs but does not specify which parameters are required (though the schema indicates payload is required), how to format values (e.g., date ranges, activity lists), or what 'session' refers to. The output schema exists but is not exposed here, and the description does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics. A more complete description would explain each parameter's role and constraints.
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% (all parameter descriptions are empty), so the description must compensate. It explicitly mentions destination, weather, experience level, group size, budget, and activities, which map to several schema properties (destination, experience, people, budget, activities). However, it omits other parameters like trip_days, pets, children, transport, and session, and does not explain their formats or relationships. The description adds some meaning but is incomplete for the full parameter set.
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 verb ('Plan') and resource ('complete camping trips') with detailed scope: destination, weather, experience level, group size, budget, and activities. It also lists concrete outputs (packing lists, meal plans, safety checklists, itineraries, campsite recommendations, emergency preparation), which clearly distinguishes it from the unrelated sibling agents. There is no ambiguity about what the tool accomplishes.
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 provides clear context: it is for planning complete camping trips. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, the sibling tools are all unrelated agents, so there is no competing camping tool. The usage is strongly implied by the purpose, but the lack of explicit exclusions or alternative routing prevents a higher score.
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.
Several tools overlap in purpose, particularly the research/analysis agents (constructivecritic, firstprinciplesanalyst, scientificresearchagent, researchagent) and the three reasoningdelegation agents, which differ only by effort level. Some tools like 'exploitagent' and 'testagent' have vague descriptions that don't clarify distinct roles. However, many tools are clearly distinct (e.g., campbuddy vs. smart_fridge___nutrition), and the core router tools (discover_agents, a2a_call_agent, wait_for_task) are well-defined.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use snake_case (a2a_call_agent, discover_agents, wait_for_task) while most others are camelCase or concatenated lowercase (browsernavigationagent, campbuddy, reasoningdelegationhigh). There's also odd naming like 'smart_fridge___nutrition' with triple underscore, and simple names like 'testagent' and 'exploitagent'. No consistent convention exists across the set.
With 24 tools, this is near the upper limit but still reasonable for an agent router that hosts many pre-defined specialized agents. The core router functions (discover, call, wait) are supplemented by a diverse set of agent tools. It's borderline heavy but each tool represents a distinct agent or action, so it's acceptable.
The router functionality is well-covered: discovery (discover_agents), synchronous calling (a2a_call_agent), asynchronous handling (wait_for_task), and skill lookup (search_skills/get_skill) for extension. Missing are explicit cancellation or task management tools, but core workflows are supported. The presence of domain-specific agents (campbuddy, silpo_home_restaurant) doesn't detract from router completeness.
