List WebAssembly proposals + phases. Filter by status (phase-0…phase-5, finished, inactive), phase (0–5), champion, affects (core|js-api|web-api), or contains.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| phase | No | Numeric phase 0–5. | |
| status | No | Lifecycle status. | |
| affects | No | Affected spec (finished only). | |
| champion | No | Champion substring. | |
| contains | No | Name/champion substring. |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds filter details, which are already in the schema, but does not disclose other behaviors like return format or pagination.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists filters. No 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?
For a listing tool with 0 required parameters and all filters described, the description is mostly complete. It lacks details about return format or pagination, but these are typical for list tools.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains parameters. The description repeats some values but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 it lists WebAssembly proposals and phases, and explicitly mentions filtering options. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like spec_search or instruction_list.
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 lists available filters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the context is clear as the tool is the only one for listing proposals.
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 targets a distinct aspect of WebAssembly: instructions (get/list/search), proposals (list), spec sections (get/list/search), version info, and types. No overlapping purposes.
All tools use consistent snake_case with verb_noun pattern: instruction_get, instruction_list, instruction_search, proposal_list, section_get, section_list, spec_search, spec_version, type_get.
9 tools is well-scoped for a WebAssembly reference server, covering instructions, specs, proposals, types, and metadata without being overwhelming.
Covers core retrieval and search for instructions, specs, proposals, and types. Minor gaps like no dedicated proposal get or type list, but the set is sufficient for typical exploration tasks.