Return model-provider route profiles, workflow mappings, and required evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| decision | No | ||
| model_id | No | ||
| route_id | No | ||
| risk_tier | No | ||
| provider_id | No | ||
| workflow_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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that the tool returns three categories of data. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires special credentials, what happens if none of the six optional parameters are provided, or how results are scoped. The output schema provides return shape but not behavioral context.
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 front-loaded sentence starting with the verb and listing three concrete output types. It contains no filler or repetition. However, it is so compressed that it sacrifices essential semantic content, so it earns partial credit for brevity rather than full credit.
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?
The tool has six undocumented optional parameters, no annotations, and a large sibling family, yet the description provides no context about parameter interactions, default behavior, or use cases. The output schema exists but cannot compensate for the absence of guidance on how to invoke the tool meaningfully. Significant information is missing.
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 does not mention any of the six parameters (decision, model_id, route_id, risk_tier, provider_id, workflow_id). Since all parameters are optional, nullable, and lack enums or descriptions, the agent has no basis for knowing how to use them to filter or shape the returned data.
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 names a specific verb ('Return') and a concrete resource domain ('model-provider route profiles, workflow mappings, and required evidence'). This distinguishes it from the many sibling recipe packs by topic, though it doesn't clarify what a 'routing pack' encompasses or how it differs from closely related governance packs.
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 invoke this tool versus any of the dozens of similar recipe_* pack tools. No alternatives are named, no exclusions are stated, and no triggering conditions are described. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the bare description.
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.