Metadados + status de um documento específico (sem o texto cru).
Bulk support: accepts document_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | ||
| document_id | Yes | ||
| document_ids | No |
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=false, providing a safety baseline. The description adds that it returns only metadata and status, not raw text, and discloses bulk support, adding useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. No filler or redundancy; every sentence adds value.
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 tool with no output schema and sparse parameter documentation, the description is too brief. It lacks details on error handling, authentication requirements, response format, and the precise usage of parameters, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke with confidence.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate but only mentions 'document_ids' for bulk support. There is no clarification on the relationship between document_id and document_ids, nor any explanation of the account parameter, leaving key parameter semantics ambiguous.
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 returns metadata and status for a specific document, clearly distinguishing it from list- or search-oriented siblings. The phrase 'sem o texto cru' adds precision, and the mention of bulk support broadens scope without ambiguity.
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 clearly implies usage for a single document or a batch of specific document IDs, but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives. The context is clear enough to infer appropriate use.
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.
Most tools are distinct: kb_* tools handle knowledge base operations, while authenticate/connect/marketplace/toolkit_info serve system-level purposes. However, 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' overlap slightly in reporting connection status, and 'marketplace' is a broad multi-purpose tool that might be confused with 'report_bug' for feedback.
The kb_* tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (kb_add_text, kb_get_document, kb_ingest_url, etc.), but system tools break the pattern: 'authenticate', 'connect', 'marketplace', 'report_bug', 'show_version', 'toolkit_info' use varying conventions (bare verbs, nouns, compound names). The mixed style reduces overall consistency.
With 13 tools, the server covers both the knowledge base domain (9 kb_* tools) and platform management (4 system tools). This is a well-scoped count that doesn't feel bloated, and each tool addresses a distinct operational need.
The kb_* tools cover the core lifecycle: add text, ingest URLs, get/list documents, search, remove. Missing obvious operations like 'update document' or 'create a new empty document' are minor gaps easily worked around. The marketplace tool adds extensibility that mitigates domain gaps, but within the stated purpose the coverage is strong.