get_location_assertionsReturn all visible location assertions for one subject, including provenance, conflict state, Place identity and legacy-field migration drift.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| subject_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?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by noting 'visible' assertions and specifying the returned data dimensions: provenance, conflict state, Place identity, and legacy-field migration drift. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the tool's purpose, scope, and payload without fluff. Every phrase adds useful information.
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?
With a one-parameter schema and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns and for which subject. It does not explain pagination or authorization visibility rules, but the 'visible' wording and read-only annotations make the tool reasonably complete for its scope.
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 has one required subject_id parameter lacking descriptive text. The description compensates reasonably by stating these are assertions 'for one subject', making the parameter's role clear. More detail isn't really necessary for a single UUID parameter.
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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Return all visible location assertions for one subject'. It also lists the included content areas, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like assert_location and resolve_location_assertion without needing their schemas.
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 clearly implies this is the read-only retrieval tool for location assertions tied to one subject. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools like resolve_location_assertion or get_deliberation, nor does it provide exclusions.
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.
Tools cluster into clear functional families — classification, location, reviews, deliberations, and system — and potentially overlapping operations are explicitly cross-referenced (e.g., enrich_subject vs correct_subject_fact, affirm vs propose reclassification). The main hazard is the resolve_subject / resolve_subject_type / resolve_subject_hierarchy trio, whose near-identical prefixes could mislead an agent at first glance despite well-written descriptions.
The surface is dominated by a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern with stable verb families: get_*, list_*, resolve_*, set_*, save_*, create_*, register_*, and submit_*. Minor deviations — bare-verb fetch and search, and the noun-led vocabulary_index — break the pattern slightly but do not obscure it.
34 tools is heavy and above the preferred range, and the classification family alone accounts for ten tools with substantially duplicated vocabulary guidance. The count is partially earned, however, because the server genuinely spans several subsystems — reviews, subject classification, location assertions, deliberations, and governance — each with its own lifecycle.
Each subsystem has thorough lifecycle coverage: deliberations (create/claim/contribute/get/list/resolution), reviews (save/fetch/delete/list/visibility), location (assert/list/resolve), and classification (propose/affirm/reopen/relationships/aliases). Minor gaps include no way to edit review content, no direct list-all-subjects endpoint, and no retirement path for fields or aliases.