Route an objective to the best unified capability with fallbacks and an authoritative execution_owner.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | ||
| kinds | No | ||
| objective | Yes | ||
| binding_ids | No | ||
| provider_ids | No | ||
| max_fallbacks | No | ||
| execution_owners | No | ||
| artifact_affinities | No |
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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'fallbacks' and 'authoritative execution_owner', hinting at retry/ownership behaviors, but does not explain side effects, failure handling, or authorization requirements. The agent remains uncertain about what happens when no capability matches or if execution_owner is missing.
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 that conveys the main action without unnecessary words. It balances brevity with essential information, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points in a longer version.
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 high complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It barely covers a fraction of the input semantics and provides no return structure, forcing the agent to guess or experiment, which is insufficient for correct invocation.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the 8 parameters. It only references 'objective', 'fallbacks' (likely max_fallbacks), and 'execution_owner' (likely execution_owners), leaving tags, kinds, binding_ids, provider_ids, and artifact_affinities unexplained. The agent cannot understand how these parameters influence routing behavior.
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 'route' and the resource 'objective', and mentions key features like 'best unified capability', 'fallbacks', and 'authoritative execution_owner'. This helps distinguish it from siblings like 'execute_capability' or 'discover_capability_binding', but terms like 'unified capability' could be more explicitly defined.
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?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for routing an objective with fallbacks, but lacks when-not-to-use explanations or examples, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate 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.
Most tools target distinct resources or actions, but there is some overlap (e.g., run_repository_fix vs run_repository_pipeline vs simulate_repository) that could cause confusion. Overall, descriptions help differentiate.
Tool names are primarily snake_case with a verb_noun pattern, but there are inconsistencies (e.g., single-word verbs like 'simulate', 'tokenize', and mixed prefixes like 'preview_', 'product_'). The pattern is readable but not uniform.
With 140 tools, the server is extremely over-scoped for typical MCP usage. This overwhelms agents and suggests poor separation of concerns, likely violating the principle of minimal tool surfaces.
The tool set covers a wide range of functionalities including data onboarding, simulation, decisions, repository management, and admin operations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update_agent_run), but core workflows are well-supported.
