Return the design partner pilot motion for buyer proof and hosted MCP validation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | ||
| risk_id | No | ||
| phase_id | No | ||
| wedge_id | No | ||
| metric_id | No | ||
| segment_id | No | ||
| question_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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Return...' with no detail on side effects, permission requirements, or what the response contains. It does not contradict annotations (there are none), but it reveals almost nothing about runtime behavior.
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 short sentence, which is concise, but it severely under-specifies the tool. It is not appropriately sized because it omits crucial information; it is merely terse.
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 7 optional parameters, no parameter documentation, no behavior explanation, and no clear return value (despite an output schema existing), the description is grossly incomplete. Even the presence of an output schema does not help because the description does not indicate what data is returned or how it is structured.
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%, and the description names none of the 7 parameters. The parameters are all optional and untyped beyond 'string' or 'null', with no explanation of what they filter or control. The description provides no semantic context for any of them.
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 uses a vague noun phrase 'design partner pilot motion' without defining it, and gives no indication of what the tool actually produces (e.g., a document, a workflow, a recommendation). It does not distinguish this tool from the dozens of other 'recipes_' siblings, making selection ambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling 'recipes_' tools. No mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or what problem it solves. The phrase 'for buyer proof and hosted MCP validation' hints at a purpose, but it is not actionable instruction.
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.