Recompute a takeoff audit hash, notary payload, pack currency, and QT9 unit-resolved conservation. Pass the prior result object 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'recompute', implying potential mutation, but doesn't confirm side effects, permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. The return structure is not described despite an output schema existing.
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 provide minimal information, but the first sentence is a dense list of technical terms that may confuse an agent. It is concise but at the expense of clarity.
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 domain complexity and absence of annotations, the description lacks context on return values, when to use the tool, and details about the parameter. The output schema could supplement, but it's not referenced.
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 single parameter 'result_json' is explained as 'the prior result object as JSON', adding some meaning beyond the schema (which has no description). However, it doesn't specify the internal structure or constraints of the object.
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 it recomputes various technical elements (audit hash, notary payload, etc.) but the purpose is not wholly clear due to domain-specific jargon. It does differentiate from siblings by mentioning 'recompute', but it doesn't clearly distinguish from calculate_takeoff.
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 instructs to 'Pass the prior result object as JSON', hinting at a prerequisite, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like calculate_takeoff or list_assemblies.
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 serves a distinct purpose: calculation, server info, retrieval of assemblies and material packs, listing, and verification. No overlapping functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., calculate_takeoff, list_assemblies, get_material_pack).
7 tools is well-scoped for a quantity takeoff server, covering listing, retrieving, calculating, and verifying without being excessive or sparse.
The tool set covers core workflows: listing, retrieval, calculation, and verification. Minor gaps like managing previous takeoffs or creating assemblies are absent but acceptable for a read-only planning estimate server.