List the clients in the caller's TomeVault workspace, which of them have certification active, and which certificates have been issued. Reports what activating would cost. It cannot activate anything: that is a paid, human decision made on the website.
| 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?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description reinforces and expands it by stating the tool cannot activate anything and that activation is a paid, human decision made on the website. This adds meaningful side-effect context beyond the annotation. It does not address the openWorldHint implication, but the core behavioral boundary is clearly disclosed.
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?
The description is three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Each sentence adds a distinct fact: what is listed, what cost information is reported, and what the tool cannot do. There is no filler or repetition.
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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description is complete enough. It states what the tool returns (clients, certification-active flags, issued certificates, activation cost) and what it cannot do. There is no output schema, but the returned content is described clearly enough for an agent to know what to expect.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. With no parameters to document, the description has nothing to add about argument semantics, and no information is missing for calling the 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 and resource: 'List the clients in the caller's TomeVault workspace', and then defines the exact scope: certification-active status, issued certificates, and activation cost. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_members or get_billing_summary, which focus on membership or billing rather than certification status.
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?
It establishes clear usage context: use this to inspect client certification status and activation cost. It also provides an explicit when-not: 'It cannot activate anything: that is a paid, human decision made on the website.' However, it does not name alternative sibling tools or describe when another tool would be preferred, so it falls just short of full guidance.
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.
