describe_agent
Fleet-standard self-description.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
agent-compute-ledger
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
D1.9/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Fleet-standard self-description' without revealing what the tool returns, whether it has side effects, or what 'self-description' entails—leaving the agent completely in the dark about its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It fails to earn its place by providing any meaningful substance, reducing the text to a vague phrase that could apply to many tools.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the tool has an output schema and zero parameters, the description is too sparse to be considered complete. It fails to explain the purpose in context, what makes it 'fleet-standard,' or how it relates to the sibling tools, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the empty input schema already communicates that no arguments are required. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Fleet-standard self-description' essentially restates the tool name 'describe_agent' with the vague qualifier 'Fleet-standard.' It lacks a specific verb and doesn't clearly articulate what the tool does beyond hinting that it describes something, making it tautological and uninformative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of exclusions or context. The description provides no clues about appropriate scenarios for calling 'describe_agent' relative to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: recording work, recording inventory, listing, verifying, and attesting. 'attest' and 'carbon_receipt' are somewhat related but serve different functions (general attestation vs. carbon-specific receipt), so they are not easily confused.
Naming Consistency3/5
The majority follow a verb_noun pattern (record_work, list_entries, verify_chain), but 'carbon_receipt' and 'footprint' are noun-only, and 'attest' is verb-only. This slight inconsistency in verb usage makes the pattern less predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for a compute ledger and carbon accounting domain. Each tool covers a distinct concern—recording, querying, verifying, and summarizing—without redundancy.
Completeness5/5
The surface covers the full lifecycle: recording compute work and inventory, retrieving and listing data, verifying chains and attestations, and generating summaries. No obvious gaps exist for the stated domain.