Skip to main content
Glama

glimind

by io.github.shawndei

prepare_tool_call

The one call to make right before using a tool. Returns, in a single round-trip: is it healthy now (verdict + recommendation), a known-good input shape (recipe) for it, and — if it is down or risky — LIVE alternative tools that do the same job. Use this instead of calling check + recipe + alternatives separately. It tells you whether to proceed, how to call it, or what to call instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskNoOptional coarse task tag to tailor the recipe/alternatives.
toolIdYesTool you are about to call ('server' or 'server/tool_name').

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes returns (verdict, recipe, alternatives) but does not mention potential side effects, permissions, or whether it is read-only. While it explains what it does, it lacks depth on behavioral traits such as idempotency or required privileges.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description consists of two concise sentences with no wasted words. All information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value: the first explains the tool's purpose, the second gives usage guidance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite no output schema, the description adequately covers the return values (verdict, recipe, alternatives) and the tool's role in the workflow. It addresses sibling tools indirectly. Slightly incomplete regarding edge cases or failure modes.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the description repeats the schema's parameter descriptions almost verbatim (e.g., 'Optional coarse task tag'). It adds no new meaning beyond what the input schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it is the call to make before using a tool, returning health, a recipe, and alternatives. It distinguishes itself from siblings like check_tool_reliability, find_alternatives, and get_working_recipe by consolidating their functions into one call.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly instructs 'Use this instead of calling check + recipe + alternatives separately.' and explains when to proceed or use alternatives. Provides clear context for when to use this tool versus its siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All glimind toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct, well-defined purpose: checking reliability, discovering tools, finding alternatives, getting recipes, routing tasks, etc. No two tools overlap in function.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., check_tool_reliability, route_task, watch_tool). The only minor deviation is 'how_to_use_glimind', which still follows a clear verb phrase convention.

Tool Count5/5

With 15 tools, the set is well-scoped for a comprehensive meta-layer covering discovery, reliability checking, preparation, batch routing, reporting, and notifications. Each tool earns its place.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the full workflow of discovering, checking, preparing, calling, and reporting on tools. A minor gap is the lack of a direct 'list all tools' catalog, but the discovery tools effectively fill this need.

Resources