Summarise the caller's TomeVault workspace: how many files are held, what sources are connected, how many people are on it, and what is not yet covered. Call this before answering questions about their setup, and before suggesting a next step, so the answer describes their real state rather than a guess. gaps lists what is missing and is as important as the counts.
| 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 and openWorldHint=true, so the description's job is to add context beyond those. It adds the caller-scoping detail, the composition of the summary, and the notable behavioral cue that '`gaps` lists what is missing and is as important as the counts' — telling the agent not to deprioritize the gap field. 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 sentences, each earning its place: what it does, when to call it, and a field-level emphasis cue. The core purpose is front-loaded and there is zero filler or repetition of the tool name.
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 0-parameter tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating what the summary contains and naming the `gaps` field explicitly. It doesn't specify exact field names or value types, but the conceptual coverage is sufficient for an agent to invoke it and interpret the result correctly.
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 0 parameters, the baseline is 4 and the schema needs no enrichment. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool does with its implicit caller context rather than inventing parameter documentation that isn't needed.
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 ('Summarise') with a clearly bounded resource ('the caller's TomeVault workspace') and enumerates the exact contents of the summary (file counts, connected sources, member count, coverage gaps). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_billing_summary, list_members, and list_vault_items, which each cover only a slice of what this tool aggregates.
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?
Gives explicit when-to-call guidance: 'Call this before answering questions about their setup, and before suggesting a next step, so the answer describes their real state rather than a guess.' This is actionable and explains the rationale (avoiding hallucinated state). It does not name specific alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the tool's role as an opener/summary makes that less critical.
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.
