get_test_statusONE consolidated object: page funnel (views, signups, confirmed, conversion) ⊕ email events (delivered/opened/clicked/bounced) ⊕ a computed verdict. The single place to check progress — never query email separately.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| testId | Yes | demand test id from create_test / list_tests |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / testId / descriptionAdded value: +"demand test id from create_test / list_tests"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {}
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it is safe. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the consolidated nature and that it includes a computed verdict, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.
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 two sentences: the first lists the components, the second gives a usage directive. It is front-loaded with the essential information and contains no fluff. Every sentence serves a 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?
Given the tool has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately describes the three components (page funnel, email events, verdict). The tool is simple with one parameter, and all necessary context is provided.
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 100% as the only parameter 'testId' is well described in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states it returns a consolidated object with page funnel metrics, email events, and a computed verdict. The verb 'get' is implied, and the resource is test status. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing it is the single source for progress, contrasting with querying email separately.
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 clear guidance: use this tool as 'The single place to check progress' and advises against querying email separately. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to prioritize this over individual email queries.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., add_domain, add_subdomain, add_custom_domain, add_sending_domain) or similar names like check_domain and check_custom_domain, which can confuse an agent. While descriptions help, the sheer number of closely related tools makes it difficult to consistently select the correct one.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern, but there are exceptions like 'read_thread' (instead of get_thread) and 'mark_thread_read' (verb_noun_verb). Prefixes like 'data_' are used inconsistently with other tools, but overall the naming is still readable.
With 103 tools, the server is extremely bloated. Even for a comprehensive platform, this count overwhelms any agent and makes the tool surface difficult to navigate. Many tools could be merged or are too granular.
The toolset covers a wide range of operations across sites, domains, email, marketplace, projects, contracts, and functions. While some updates (e.g., general contract editing) are missing, the surface is mostly comprehensive for the domain.