resolve_scopeGSC Scoped Agents Registry — Era 1 founding registry (1,000,000 standing) plus Era 2 station-keyed registry (1,000,000 capacity, mint-on-activation) under SM-ECO-10060.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope_id | No |
| 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?
The description mentions Era 1 standing and Era 2 mint-on-activation, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, failure behavior, or whether resolution is read-only. With no annotations, the description leaves the behavioral and safety profile largely undefined.
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 short, but it is cryptic rather than usefully concise. The policy code SM-ECO-10060 and registry capacity facts do not earn their place because they do not help an agent select or invoke the tool correctly.
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?
Even with an output schema available, the description does not tie the optional parameter to the two registry eras, explain null behavior, or indicate what a successful scope resolution returns. The provided registry lore is insufficient for correct tool use.
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 sole parameter, scope_id, is described nowhere in the tool description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain what scope_id represents and how null should be interpreted, but it does not.
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 names a registry and its era structure but never states what operation resolve_scope performs. It adds domain context to the title but does not distinguish the tool from sibling tools like resolve_gtin, resolve_node, or resolve_sparks.
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 sentence explains when this tool should be used, when it should not be used, or what alternatives exist. The registry-era details imply some selection logic, but the agent is left to guess which registry is relevant or when to call this tool.
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.
Multiple tools overlap heavily: resolve_gtin, resolve_sparks, and get_signal_chain all resolve GTINs to different but closely related signals, and resolve_node vs node_market both return the same node with makers/retailers counts. Agents will struggle to pick the correct tool without reading deep into descriptions.
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (check_, count_, find_, get_, list_, resolve_), but node_market breaks the pattern and the get_ vs resolve_ distinction is not obvious. Overall readable with only minor deviations.
14 tools is well-scoped for a CPG knowledge graph covering GTIN resolution, eligibility, supply/demand search, node metadata, taxonomy, and brand coverage. Each tool reasonably earns its place without overwhelming the surface.
The surface covers the apparent domain comprehensively: GTIN resolution, eligibility checks, maker/retailer discovery, node/spine queries, SKU taxonomy, brand listings, signal chains, and registries. For a read-only knowledge graph, there are no obvious dead ends or missing core operations.