Get one full report in JSON.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobID | Yes | Job identifier of the report (example: x9z) | |
| timeStamp | Yes | Timestamp of the report in YYMMDDTHHmm format (example: 260503T0432) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool name | Yes | ||
| this request | Yes | ||
| tool collection | Yes | ||
| response content | Yes | ||
| response metadata | Yes | ||
| URLs of similar requests for web users | 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context ('full report', JSON format) but does not disclose behaviors such as error handling, required permission, or behavior when the report does not exist.
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 a single, focused sentence with no wasted words. 'One full report' adds useful scope, and 'in JSON' specifies the output format without redundancy.
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?
The schema and annotations cover required parameters and safety behavior, and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, the description lacks any usage context or alternative routing, which is a noticeable gap for a tool with several related siblings.
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 input schema provides full coverage of both parameters, including descriptions and examples, so the description carries no additional parameter semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly identifies the operation (get), resource (report), scope (one full report), and format (JSON). It differentiates from the sibling listReports by emphasizing 'one full report,' though it does not explicitly name the sibling or describe the distinction.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as listReports. The description neither states prerequisites, exclusions, nor conditions under which this tool should be selected, leaving usage entirely to inference.
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 has a distinct purpose: getReport retrieves full reports, listReports lists them, listIssues drills into issues, listViolators details elements, listDiagnoses details diagnoses, and the request* tools handle test/future actions. No two tools overlap.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun camelCase pattern: get or list for retrieval, request for actions. The naming is uniform and predictable.
Eight tools fit the domain well—covering listing, retrieval, drilling down, and requesting actions without redundancy or bloat.
The surface covers the full testing workflow: request a test/retest, list/get reports, inspect issues, violators, and diagnoses. No critical operations are missing.