Read a scenario bootstrap sequence from reference-apps//bootstrap-sequence.md
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Scenario name. Available: attested-provenance-registry, encrypted-communication, git-pr-signing-service, iga-admin-governance, organisation-password-manager, policy-governed-signing |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / name / descriptionPrevious value: -"Scenario name. Available: encrypted-communication, git-pr-signing-service, iga-admin-governance, organisation-password-manager, policy-governed-signing"New value: +"Scenario name. Available: attested-provenance-registry, encrypted-communication, git-pr-signing-service, iga-admin-governance, organisation-password-manager, policy-governed-signing"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the exact file path but does not mention return format, error handling, or that it returns the file's raw content. With annotations, this is adequate but not rich.
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, efficiently front-loaded with the action and resource, containing zero waste. Every word is purposeful.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with one well-described parameter and safety annotations, the description is mostly complete. However, there is no output schema and the description does not state what the return value looks like, leaving a small gap for the agent.
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 input schema provides 100% coverage, with a detailed description of the 'name' parameter listing all available scenario names. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 explicitly states 'Read a scenario bootstrap sequence from reference-apps/<scenario>/bootstrap-sequence.md', providing a specific verb, resource, and file path. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that read other scenario artifacts like manifests or roles.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply states what it does without any contextual usage hints.
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 have clearly distinct purposes: reading specific document types (adapter, canon, gaps, playbook, etc.), performing assessments (blast_radius, security_analysis), branding, deployment decision, and listing content. However, some reading tools like tide_canon and tide_gaps could be confused, and the multiple scenario-related tools (scenario, bootstrap, manifest, roles) require careful reading of descriptions to differentiate.
All tools use the 'tide_' prefix with snake_case, which provides a strong pattern. However, the naming mixes nouns (tide_canon, tide_gaps) with verb phrases (tide_choose_playbook, tide_list), and some tools like tide_dpop_asset are less intuitive. The pattern is mostly consistent but not strictly verb_noun.
With 19 tools, the set is on the higher end for a single server. While many are necessary for the broad scope of reading various reference materials and performing analyses, the count feels slightly excessive. A few tools could be consolidated or removed to improve focus.
The tool surface covers reading all major reference documents, performing security assessments, branding, deployment decisions, and scenario matching. For the stated purpose of a 'Tide agent pack', it appears comprehensive. Minor gaps might include a tool for overall system health or status, but the core workflows are well-covered.