Return context provenance, retrieval policy, source hashes, and workflow context packages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| decision | No | ||
| source_id | No | ||
| trust_tier | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Return' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state whether it modifies any state, what authentication is needed, any rate limits, or what happens when parameters are left null. It also does not mention any restrictions or side effects.
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 sentence with no filler and is appropriately front-loaded, stating the action and the key outputs. While it is short, it does not waste words. However, it is arguably too brief for a tool with four undocumented parameters, but for pure conciseness it earns 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?
Given the tool has four optional parameters, no annotations, and no schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain any parameter behavior, typical use cases, or how it relates to the many sibling trust and context packs. While an output schema exists, the description still fails to provide enough context for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.
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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate for the lack of parameter explanations. The description lists output categories but does not map them to the four parameters (decision, source_id, trust_tier, workflow_id). An agent cannot infer what these parameters do or how they affect the returned package, so the description fails to add meaningful parameter semantics.
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 specific verb 'Return' and enumerates concrete outputs: context provenance, retrieval policy, source hashes, and workflow context packages. It clearly indicates what the tool produces, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like recipes_secure_context_lineage_ledger or recipes_secure_context_attestation_pack, which likely have overlapping purposes.
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 alternatives. The description does not mention preferred scenarios, prerequisites, or conditions that should route an agent to a different sibling tool. It is purely a functional statement with no usage context.
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.