olark_requestPower-user escape hatch: GET any Olark API path not wrapped by a dedicated tool. READ-ONLY — only GET is allowed. Pass the FULL API path after the base, starting with a slash, INCLUDING any query string, e.g. "/operators?page=2" or "/groups". Returns the parsed JSON.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Full API path after the base, starting with "/", e.g. "/operators?page=2". |
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 discloses that only GET is allowed, that paths may include query strings, and that the response is parsed JSON. The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, so the additional method restriction and return-format detail add useful context beyond the annotation.
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?
Three sentences deliver the purpose, usage constraint, path format, example, and output format. The key information is front-loaded and there is no unnecessary filler.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers the path format, the method restriction, and the return value. The sibling context further clarifies when this escape hatch should be used.
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 schema already describes the path parameter at 100% coverage. The description adds emphasis and examples, particularly the requirement to include any query string, which helps prevent a common misuse even though it does not introduce new parameter semantics.
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 states the tool is a power-user escape hatch for GET requests to any Olark API path not covered by dedicated tools. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_operator, list_operators, and update_operator.
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?
It explicitly says to use this tool for paths not wrapped by a dedicated tool, establishing when-not-to-use relative to alternatives. It also reinforces read-only usage and provides concrete path examples like /operators?page=2.
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 dedicated tool targets a distinct operator or group operation, so the core set is easy to separate. The only ambiguity is olark_request, a generic GET escape hatch that can overlap with list_operators/list_groups, but its purpose is clearly labeled as a power-user fallback.
Most tools follow a clear verb_object snake_case pattern such as create_operator, list_operators, add_operator_to_group, and remove_operator_from_group. olark_request breaks the pattern slightly by being noun-style rather than verb-first, but the rest of the naming is consistent.
Eight tools is a well-scoped count for an Olark operator and group management server. Each tool covers a distinct operation without redundant duplicates or excessive granularity.
Operator coverage includes create, get, list, and update, but there is no delete_operator, which is a notable lifecycle gap. Group management is also incomplete since it only lists groups and manages membership, with no way to create, update, or delete groups.