List every resolution artifact published for settled Class M disputes, returning each artifact's id, domain, and resolution utility. Use this when the user wants to see what technical disputes have already been settled and what reusable output each settlement produced.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which cover the safety profile. The description adds context about the scope ('every' artifact, settled disputes) and the specific return fields (id, domain, resolution utility), going beyond the annotations. It does not mention edge cases like pagination, but for a simple list tool with strong annotations, this is adequate.
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 long, front-loaded with the core action and return value, followed by a clear usage guideline. Every clause adds value, with no redundancy or 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?
The tool has no parameters, and the description clearly states its purpose, scope, and return fields. The presence of an output schema (notably not needed to be explained) and strong annotations make this a complete, self-contained description for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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?
With zero parameters, the description has no need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 for 0 params applies, and the description correctly avoids inventing any param-related details.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('resolution artifacts published for settled Class M disputes'), and it clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_issues and get_solution by focusing on settled disputes and their reusable outputs. It also names the returned fields, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when the user wants to see what technical disputes have already been settled and what reusable output each settlement produced.' It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the guidance is clear and actionable.
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 or action: fetching challenge, corpus, issue, ledger, market, params, key, settlement, solution; listing issues, tasks, solutions; preparing and submitting work; and describing the protocol. There is no overlap or ambiguity among them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores: get_*, list_*, prepare_*, submit_*, and describe_*. The pattern is uniform and predictable across the entire set.
With 15 tools, the surface is well-scoped for a domain that requires both read and write capabilities. Each tool contributes meaningfully without redundancy, and the count falls within the ideal 3-15 range.
The tool set provides full lifecycle coverage: understanding the write protocol, reading all relevant data (issues, markets, ledger, settlements, solutions, params), preparing work entries, and submitting them. There are no obvious gaps or dead ends for an agent to accomplish its goals.