The tool list last observed at an MCP endpoint, with the timestamp of the most recent schema change. Reads stored history; does not probe.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public http(s) URL of the MCP endpoint to inspect. |
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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses key traits: reads stored history, does not probe (no network request), and returns 'last observed' data, indicating potential staleness. However, it does not mention error conditions, behavior when no history exists, or response format details.
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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core return value, and includes a concise behavioral disclaimer ('does not probe'). Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential return values (tool list and timestamp) and the key behavioral distinction (not probing). It does not specify the exact structure of the tool list (e.g., array of strings, objects), but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
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 already has 100% coverage with a description for the only parameter ('url'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no new semantic meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides; it only restates that the endpoint is an MCP endpoint.
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 clearly states that the tool returns the tool list last observed at an MCP endpoint, along with the timestamp of the most recent schema change. It uses a specific verb ('Reads stored history') and explicitly distinguishes from probing tools by saying 'does not probe', which also differentiates it from sibling tools like check_mcp_endpoint.
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 provides clear context that this tool reads stored history and does not probe the endpoint, which implies it is for historical/cached data rather than live checks. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'use this when...'—the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
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 clearly distinct: get_known_tools and get_uptime read history, while check_mcp_endpoint is a general live probe. The only potential confusion is between check_mcp_endpoint and check_schema_drift, as both involve schema changes, but their descriptions clarify that one is a broad health check and the other is a focused diff.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: check_ for active probes and get_ for historical retrievals. This makes the tool's behavior predictable from its name.
Four tools is well-scoped for a validator/monitoring server, covering live checks and historical reads without unnecessary bloat.
The server covers live probing, schema drift detection, and historical views of tools and uptime. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to list all monitored endpoints or manage snapshots, but for the stated purpose the core operations are present.