Recompute a disclosure draft audit hash, notary payload, structural invariants, and framework-pack currency. Pass the prior result as JSON.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result_json | 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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions recomputing multiple aspects, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires special permissions, or has side effects. The input format hint is helpful but behavioral traits remain unclear.
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?
Two sentences with no fluff. First sentence states core purpose, second explains input format. 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 single parameter and presence of output schema, the description covers the core action and input. However, it misses workflow context (e.g., how this relates to compile_disclosure) and does not mention output format, which is acceptable due to output schema.
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 0%, meaning the only parameter (result_json) has no description in the schema. The description states 'Pass the prior result as JSON', giving basic purpose but lacking structural details about the expected JSON content or format.
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 specifies a clear action (recompute) on a specific resource (disclosure draft audit hash, notary payload, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like compile_disclosure which compiles rather than verifies.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'Pass the prior result as JSON' implies a workflow but does not mention alternatives or prerequisites. Sibling tools like compile_disclosure suggest a sequencing, but the description does not clarify.
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.
All five tools have distinct and clearly defined purposes: compilation, agent info, framework retrieval (detail and list), and verification. No overlap or ambiguity exists.
Every tool uses snake_case with a consistent verb_noun pattern (compile_disclosure, describe_agent, get_framework, list_frameworks, verify_result). No deviations.
Five tools cover the core capabilities of a disclosure compiler without redundancy. The scope is well-scoped and each tool earns its place.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: compilation, framework exploration, verification, and agent metadata. No obvious gaps for the stated domain.