describe_agent
Describe scope, evidence boundary, inputs, and outputs.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
security-preflight
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It vaguely mentions describing scope, evidence boundary, inputs, and outputs but does not disclose any behavioral traits like read-only nature, side effects, or required permissions. At least it is not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded, and contains no waste. However, it is too vague to be effective; conciseness sacrifices clarity.
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?
Given zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what kind of agent this is, nor does it leverage the security context hinted by sibling tools to provide meaningful usage context.
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?
There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since none exist. Mentioning 'inputs' is consistent with no inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Describe scope, evidence boundary, inputs, and outputs' states a general purpose but does not clearly identify what 'agent' refers to or distinguish this tool from sibling tools get_security_receipt and security_preflight, which are security-related.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or exclusions. The description leaves the agent to infer usage.
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
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: describe_agent provides context, security_preflight runs the check, get_security_receipt retrieves results. No overlap.
Naming Consistency3/5
Two tools follow verb_noun pattern (describe_agent, get_security_receipt), but security_preflight is noun_noun, introducing inconsistency.
Tool Count5/5
Three tools cover the essential operations for a focused security preflight service: describe, run, and retrieve receipt. No excess or deficiency.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface fully covers the stated purpose: describing the agent, running a static preflight, and retrieving the signed receipt. No obvious gaps.