List the operational domains accepted by Senlay and a brief of the evidence and threshold logic each domain uses. Actual thresholds and assessments always come from Senlay Core.
| 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 mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, so the description's job is lighter. It adds value by disclosing that the tool provides only a brief of evidence and threshold logic and that actual thresholds and assessments always come from Senlay Core, which manages expectations about the authority of the returned information.
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 a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds essential detail about what the listing includes and the important caveat about Senlay Core. No words are wasted.
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: it states what is listed, what detail is provided, and the limitation of the information. There are no missing operational details that an agent would need to invoke the tool 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?
The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is no parameter burden to describe. The description appropriately focuses on the output content rather than inputs, matching the baseline expected for a no-parameter 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List the operational domains accepted by Senlay' and indicates the content included (evidence and threshold logic). This makes the tool's identity clear and distinguishable from siblings like check_operability and sense_location.
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 implies the tool is used to get an inventory of operational domains and their threshold logic, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over its siblings or when not to use it. The caveat about Senlay Core provides some context but no direct alternative 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.
Each tool serves a clearly distinct purpose: gathering physical evidence, listing supported operational domains, and producing an operability assessment. There is no realistic confusion between data retrieval, metadata listing, and decision support.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase snake_case: check_operability, list_domains, and sense_location. The verbs are varied but specific to each action, making the naming predictable and intuitive.
Three tools is well-scoped for a focused physical-context decision-support server. Each tool earns its place: one for evidence, one for domain context, and one for the final assessment.
The server covers the full workflow for its stated purpose: discovering applicable domains, retrieving current physical-world evidence, and checking operability with uncertainty handling. It explicitly names missing evidence rather than leaving dead ends, so agents can proceed without guessing.