spof_analysis
Detect Single Points of Failure without redundancy.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
dependencyoracle
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the tool detects SPOFs, with no mention of inputs, outputs, side effects, or requirements. This is insufficient for an agent to understand what invoking the tool entails.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence without redundant wording, making it concise and front-loaded. However, the phrase 'without redundancy' is slightly ambiguous and could have been clearer, which prevents a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no parameters or output schema, but the description still does not explain what the output looks like, the meaning of 'without redundancy', or how this analysis differs from related sibling tools. This makes it incomplete for an agent deciding whether to use this tool or another.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, and the description adds no parameter information. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters to document, since there is nothing to clarify.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to detect Single Points of Failure, using a specific verb ('Detect') and resource. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like blast_radius or criticality_score, which may also involve analyzing failure impact, so it falls short of a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The phrase 'without redundancy' hints at a condition, but there is no explicit mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: inventory, registration, dependency mapping, graph retrieval, and various analyses. While blast_radius and impact_simulation are related, their descriptions clearly differentiate static impact calculation from cascade simulation.
Naming Consistency3/5
All names use snake_case, but there is a mix of noun phrases (asset_inventory, blast_radius) and verb phrases (map_dependency, register_asset). This inconsistency in part-of-speech reduces predictability, though still readable and understandable.
Tool Count5/5
Ten tools is well-scoped for an ICT dependency analysis platform. Each tool covers a meaningful operation without redundancy or bloat.
Completeness3/5
The set covers creation, reading, and analysis well, but it lacks update and delete operations for assets, dependencies, and functions. This leaves lifecycle management incomplete, forcing agents to work around missing mutations.