Return this MCP wrapper's local security controls and publication gates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool returns data but does not state it is read-only, any permissions needed, or potential error cases. However, for a zero-parameter retrieval, the omission is less critical; a 3 is fair as it communicates basic behavior.
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 sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with the action 'Return', and no redundant phrases. 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?
Given the tool has an output schema (not shown), the description need not detail return values. However, it does not define 'local security controls' or 'publication gates,' which may require domain knowledge. For a simple 0-param tool, this is nearly complete.
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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Description adds no parameter details, but baseline for 0 params is 4. No additional information needed.
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 tool returns local security controls and publication gates, using the specific verb 'Return' and identifying the resource. The name 'security_profile' aligns well, and it is distinct from sibling tools like 'ddg_security_service_catalog' which likely covers broader services.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ddg_security_service_catalog or ddg_skill_safety_scan. The description implies usage for checking security controls but lacks explicit context or exclusions.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose, ranging from status checks to order management to payment processing. Despite the large number, descriptions make them easy to differentiate, with no obvious overlap.
All tools share the 'ddg_' prefix, but naming patterns vary: some use verb_noun (e.g., ddg_list_models) while others use noun_noun (e.g., ddg_agent_status). This mix reduces consistency, though readability remains acceptable.
With 25 tools, the count is at the high end but scales to cover diverse aspects of payable services (status, orders, payments, models, x402). Minor consolidation could be possible, but most tools earn their place.
The tool surface covers core workflows like order lifecycle, payment, and service discovery. Minor gaps (e.g., no cancellation or refund tools) exist but do not severely hinder typical agent interactions.
