Fetch one product owned by the caller, including the CVE breakdown.
Returns 404 (not 403) if the product belongs to another user, so product existence isn't leaked across accounts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product_id | Yes |
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 provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the 404 behavior for other owners, which is a key security detail, but omits other aspects like error handling or rate limits.
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?
Two sentences, to the point, no fluff. Front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 fetch tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and security behavior, but lacks parameter details and return format, making it adequate but not complete.
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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the product_id parameter beyond implication. Adding format or constraints would improve usability.
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 tool fetches one product including CVE breakdown, distinguishing it from list_products (list) and get_cve (CVE only).
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 a security note about 404 vs 403 to prevent info leakage, which is helpful for correct usage, but lacks explicit when-to-use vs siblings.
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 resource and action: product lifecycle (create/get/list/update), CVE lookup/search, VEX retrieval, access request, support submission, and identity/quota check. There is no overlap; even create_product and update_product are clearly differentiated by their operation semantics.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_product, get_cve, list_products, etc.) using lowercase with underscores. The only outlier is whoami, which is a standard Unix-style command and fits naturally.
10 tools is well-scoped for the domain of Linux kernel security scanning and CVE/product management. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy or bloat, covering the core workflows without overwhelming the agent.
The tool set covers the major lifecycle for products (create, get, list, update) and CVEs (search, get), plus VEX retrieval and account context. Minor gaps exist such as product deletion or direct config upload, but these can be worked around via existing tools and the REST API.
