load_templatesList the agent's saved load templates — reusable shipment configs (name, dims, weight, commodity). Recall one to quote/book a repeat kind of load without re-entering details. Auth required.
| 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?
The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying that the tool lists reusable shipment configs with fields (name, dims, weight, commodity) and requires authentication. It confirms the read-only nature without contradicting annotations.
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 only two sentences, both highly informative. The first sentence states the primary function, and the second provides usage guidance. No redundant or unnecessary words.
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 no parameters, a readOnlyHint annotation, and no output schema, the description is complete. It clearly explains what is listed, the purpose, and the auth requirement, leaving no significant gaps.
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 has no parameters, and the description effectively explains why by describing the type of content returned. It adds meaning beyond the schema by detailing the fields in a template and the use case.
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 starts with 'List the agent's saved load templates', clearly specifying the action and resource. It explains what templates contain and distinguishes from sibling tools like save and delete by focusing on listing and recalling for quoting/booking.
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 explicitly states when to use it: to recall a template for quoting/booking a repeat load. It also mentions 'Auth required' as a prerequisite. However, it does not provide explicit exclusions or alternatives, which would make it a 5.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose. Overlapping tools like batch_quote, compare_modes, and per-mode quote tools are clearly differentiated by their scope and use cases. Batch vs single booking are also distinct.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., batch_quote, list_bookings). A few like 'analytics' and 'events' are noun-only but still clear. Overall consistent with minor deviations.
26 tools cover a broad logistics domain including quoting, booking, tracking, documents, and account management. While slightly heavy, each tool serves a specific function and the count is reasonable for the scope.
The tool set appears complete for freight operations: all major modes quoted, single/batch/multi-stop booking, tracking, documents, invoices, history, and account management. No obvious missing CRUD operations.