Return MCP authorization conformance, scope-drift, and token-boundary evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| decision | No | ||
| namespace | No | ||
| workflow_id | No | ||
| connector_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 present, so the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'Return ... evidence.' It does not disclose read-only behavior, how the parameters affect the result, whether any context is required, or what 'scope-drift' and 'token-boundary' evidence mean operationally. The wording is not misleading but is too thin to be transparent.
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 clear sentence with no filler and front-loads the main deliverable. It is easy to scan and efficient, though its brevity is partly achieved by omitting useful detail.
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 tool with four optional parameters and no annotations, one sentence is not enough to convey invocation semantics, evidence boundaries, or how this pack differs from similarly named siblings. Even with an output schema present, the description lacks the context needed to use 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description mentions none of the four parameters: decision, namespace, workflow_id, and connector_id. Their nullable/default null shapes are documented only structurally, with no meaning added. An agent cannot determine what values to supply or how they influence the returned evidence.
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 deliverable—'MCP authorization conformance, scope-drift, and token-boundary evidence'—with the verb 'Return', so it is not a tautology and has a clear resource. However, it does not differentiate this pack from closely related siblings such as recipes_mcp_tool_surface_drift_pack or recipes_agentic_protocol_conformance_pack, so it misses the top score.
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 recipe packs. The description provides no scenario, prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool names. An agent would have to infer the intended context entirely from the tool name.
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.