Return scope-bound approval receipt profiles, workflow requirements, and evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| decision | No | ||
| risk_tier | No | ||
| workflow_id | No | ||
| action_class | No | ||
| approval_profile_id | No |
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that the tool returns profiles, workflow requirements, and evidence, and that results are scope-bound. But it does not clarify whether this is a read-only retrieval, whether it depends on prior approvals, or what side effects might occur.
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 sentence with no wasted words and front-loads the primary action. It is concise, though it sacrifices necessary detail; the brevity itself is not the problem, but the under-specification limits its value.
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?
Given five optional nullable parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and a large set of similarly named sibling packs, this one-line description is insufficient for an agent to know how to invoke the tool correctly. The output schema exists but is not enough to compensate for missing parameter semantics and usage context.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for five undocumented parameters: decision, risk_tier, workflow_id, action_class, and approval_profile_id. The phrase 'scope-bound' hints that parameters constrain the result set, but it does not explain what any parameter means or how they interact, leaving the agent without usable guidance.
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 ('Return') and resource ('approval receipt profiles, workflow requirements, and evidence'), and the name makes the approval-receipt focus clear versus sibling packs like recipes_agentic_run_receipt_pack. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings or explain what makes it distinct other than the tool name.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as recipes_agentic_run_receipt_pack or other agentic recipe packs. The phrase 'scope-bound' implies some filtering by the optional parameters, but there is no explicit context, precondition, or exclusion stated.
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.
Many tools return 'pack' artifacts with nearly identical descriptions, such as recipes_agentic_assurance_pack, recipes_agentic_posture_snapshot, and recipes_agentic_readiness_scorecard, or recipes_mcp_connector_intake_pack versus recipes_mcp_connector_trust_pack. Distinct domains like CVE lookup and playbooks are clear, but dozens of evidence/profile packs blur together and will cause misselection.
All names use the recipes_ prefix and snake_case, and most pack tools follow a [domain]_[topic]_pack pattern, which aids recognition. However, verbs are placed inconsistently and mixed with noun-only names: recipes_get, recipes_cve_get, recipes_mcp_server_get, recipes_refresh, and many pure 'pack' names.
Seventy-five tools is an extreme count for any MCP server, especially when the majority are highly specialized 'pack' endpoints with narrow outputs. The sheer number creates major selection overhead and makes the tool surface difficult for an agent to navigate reliably.
The server covers its apparent read-only scope thoroughly: recipe search/get, CVE lookup, playbook planning, MCP server catalog, upstream MCP introspection, and extensive evidence packs. There are no obvious dead ends, though the massive pack proliferation makes it harder for agents to know which tool to call.