Report which plan the caller's TomeVault workspace is on, who is on it, what is included, and how much of that is unused. Read only: it cannot change a plan or spend money. It does not report a seat count, because seats bill on approved authority rather than headcount and the exact figure is on their billing page.
| 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 include readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds valuable context: the operation cannot change installed plans or spend money, and the seat count exclusion is explained with a rationale (approved-authority billing). No contradiction with 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?
Three concise sentences, each earning its place: purpose, safety, and a key limitation. The primary function is front-loaded, with no wasted words or redundant elaboration.
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 already enumerates the report contents (plan, members, inclusions, unused amounts) and a notable exclusion (seat count). With no output schema, this is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke and interpret results; a small gap is that the exact return format is not specified, but the semantic contents are clear.
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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing to document. The description's lack of parameter discussion is appropriate; a baseline of 4 is warranted for a parameterless tool.
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 opens with a specific verb ('Report') and defines the exact resource scope: the caller's TomeVault workspace's billing plan, its members, included items, and unused amounts. It explicitly distinguishes itself from a seat-count report, which sets it apart from potential sibling tools like spotcheck_costs.
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?
Usage intent is clear through the stated purpose: use when the caller needs billing summary information. It provides strong when-not guidance by declaring it cannot change plans, spend money, or report seat counts, and points to the billing page for the exact seat figure. It does not name an alternative tool, but the negative constraints are sufficient for agent routing.
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 in purpose: get_tome and get_vault_item both fetch a single item's content without clarifying the relationship between tomes and vault items, and connect_source overlaps with get_workspace_status for reporting connected sources. The detailed descriptions help, but the boundaries between these pairs remain unclear.
Most tool names follow a clear snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_tome, list_vault_items, scan_content, verify_attestation). There are minor deviations such as deliver_to_source with its preposition and connect_source whose name undersells its reporting behavior, but the overall convention is predictable.
Fifteen tools is within a reasonable range for a workspace, content-management, and attestation service, and most tools map to a distinct concern. The count feels slightly heavy because a few tools (get_tome vs get_vault_item, connect_source vs get_workspace_status) could potentially be consolidated.
Read, search, scan, versioning, and delivery workflows are well covered, along with members, billing, and workspace status. However, there are notable lifecycle gaps: no disconnect/remove for sources, no remove or role-update for members, and no delete or explicit approve action for vault items/versions.
