Return the customer proof contract for design partner and acquisition evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | ||
| gate_id | No | ||
| risk_id | No | ||
| claim_id | No | ||
| event_id | No | ||
| metric_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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read-only retrieval ('Return') but does not mention how the six optional parameters filter results, what a 'customer proof contract' contains, or any permissions or side effects. Minimal behavioral insight is offered.
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 redundant words, and the action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though perhaps overly terse given the tool's complexity; still, it earns a high score purely on conciseness.
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 six optional parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and a bare one-sentence description, the tool is severely under-specified. An agent cannot determine what the parameters mean, how to filter, or what the returned contract contains. The output schema exists but the input semantics are completely absent, making this inadequate for reliable use.
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 0% description coverage and the tool description mentions none of the six parameters (status, gate_id, risk_id, claim_id, event_id, metric_id). The description provides zero additional meaning for these parameters, leaving agents without any guidance on how to set 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 clearly states the verb 'Return' and the resource 'customer proof contract' for a specific purpose (design partner and acquisition evidence). It distinguishes the tool's core function, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from many similar 'recipes_secure_context_*' siblings, which lowers it slightly.
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 alternative sibling tools, such as recipes_secure_context_evidence_contract or recipes_secure_context_attestation_pack. The description provides no context on when this specific 'customer proof contract' is needed or what scenarios favor it.
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.