Collect bounded context from configured upstream MCP servers for a remediation query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| max_chars | No | ||
| server_ids | 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 full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, makes outbound network calls, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The verb 'collect' implies passivity, but this is not confirmed, and limitations like max_chars are not mentioned in the description.
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 concise sentence with no wordiness, which earns points for structure. However, it is too brief to be useful – it omits critical details that should be present, so the conciseness comes at the cost of adequacy. It is under-specified rather than appropriately condensed.
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 the tool's purpose of collecting context from external MCP servers and the presence of an output schema, the description fails to explain the operational context. It does not clarify what 'bounded context' means, how the query should be phrased, or any constraints. An agent would likely need to invoke the tool to discover behavior, which is risky for a 3-parameter tool with no annotations.
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 schema has three parameters (query, max_chars, server_ids) with zero description coverage. The description adds no explanation of what these parameters mean, how they interact, or what valid values look like. An agent cannot infer that query is the remediation question, max_chars bounds the output, or server_ids filters which upstream servers are consulted.
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 action (collect), resource (bounded context), source (upstream MCP servers), and purpose (remediation query). It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools like recipes_mcp_upstream_call (direct call) and recipes_mcp_upstream_servers (list servers). However, 'bounded context' is jargon that is not explained, slightly reducing clarity.
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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions that favor this tool over others, or illustrative scenarios. An agent must guess when 'collecting context' is appropriate.
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.