get_loadoutFetch one curated loadout: its servers (each with role + LIVE trust/transport/tool-risk from the index), an aggregated governance posture for the whole kit, and the plays (see→decide→act sequences) it's designed to run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Loadout slug, e.g. 'gtm', 'coding', 'research' |
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clarifies that the tool fetches data (read operation) and specifies what is returned (servers, governance, plays). However, it does not mention side-effect safety, rate limits, or authentication needs.
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?
Single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and then lists the return components. No superfluous information.
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 description adequately covers the complexity: one parameter, no output schema. It explains the components of the returned data. Minor gap: does not specify that the response is a single object, but that is implied.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for the 'slug' parameter. The tool description does not add additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline.
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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('curated loadout') and details the components (servers, governance, plays), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_loadouts.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as get_server, list_loadouts, or get_alternatives. It does not provide context for selection.
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 targets a distinct operation: checking trust, comparing servers, generating configs, fetching records, listing capabilities or loadouts, searching, planning, and reporting. No two tools overlap in purpose; even similar verbs like 'get' and 'list' are applied to different resources.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., check_trust, get_server, list_capabilities). The verbs are specific and descriptive, and the nouns clearly indicate the target resource or action.
14 tools is well-scoped for a server that indexes and evaluates MCP servers. The number is sufficient to cover core operations (retrieval, comparison, configuration, planning, reporting) without being overwhelming or redundant.
The tool surface covers all essential interactions: exploring servers, capabilities, loadouts, and stats; comparing and trusting; generating configs; planning toolkits; and reporting issues. The domain is fully served with no obvious missing capabilities.