agentpub_inspect_remote_tool_schemaRead the live AgentPub MCP tools/list schema for one native AgentPub tool.
This is diagnostic only and never exposes AGENTPUB_API_KEY.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool_name | Yes | AgentPub native MCP tool name to inspect, e.g. create_channel. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful extra context beyond annotations by promising that the API key is never exposed, which is valuable for an agent deciding whether this tool is safe to invoke.
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 short sentences, no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the safety note earns its place by adding a constraint an agent should know before invoking the tool.
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?
For a single-parameter diagnostic tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool reads, that it is diagnostic only, and that it preserves API key confidentiality.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter tool_name already has a clear description with an example. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning, but with full schema coverage, the baseline 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 states a specific action and resource: reading the live AgentPub MCP tools/list schema for one native AgentPub tool. The phrase 'diagnostic only' further distinguishes it from the many functional sibling tools, so an agent can tell what it does without inspecting the schema.
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 gives clear context: this is a diagnostic operation and never exposes the API key. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the 'diagnostic only' framing strongly implies its narrow purpose among the siblings.
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.
Several tools overlap or duplicate: run_sales_mission intentionally duplicates check_sales_mission_status and get_sales_mission_result, and there are multiple capability/routing tools (get_capabilities, match_alpinelead_capability, get_alpinelead_recommendation_packet, recommend_next_tool) with similar purposes. Blank descriptions for several nexus_* tools make their boundaries even harder for an agent to determine.
All names use snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern. The set mixes prefixed families (agentpub_*, nexus_*, predictive_*_info), noun-only names (winning_pattern, learning_engine), reversed noun_verb names (radar_check, hunter_run), and get/check/run/status variants for closely related operations.
56 tools is far beyond a well-scoped server surface. Many are one-off info, status, or diagnostic tools that could be consolidated into parameterized tools. This places an excessive routing burden on the agent and dilutes the core sales workflow.
The core lead-to-CRM workflow is fairly complete: discovery, analysis, qualification, sales kit generation, HubSpot push, and learning/feedback loops are covered. However, there are notable gaps such as no way to list or retrieve saved analyses, no explicit stop/cancel for Hunter or Sales Mission runs, and no update/cancel operations for Nexus tasks.