List educational pillars (privacy, wallets, deai, nostr, …) with summaries. Educational only. Not financial advice. Not an FSP/CASP. DYOR. Listings and tools are not buy, sell, custody, or swap recommendations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context: the content is educational, not financial advice, and not a recommendation. However, it does not disclose operational details such as data source, static vs live content, or update behavior, though these are less critical for a simple read-only listing.
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 core function is stated first and is clear, with examples. The second half consists of legal-style disclaimers that are somewhat repetitive, but the overall description remains short and readable, so the extra context does not significantly hurt usability.
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 zero parameters and simple list semantics, the description is essentially complete: it names the resource, gives examples, and indicates the output includes summaries. There is no output schema, but 'with summaries' provides enough shape for an agent to understand the expected result.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully specifies invocation requirements, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are needed.
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 a concrete resource ('educational pillars'), with examples such as privacy, wallets, deai, and nostr, plus the expected output ('with summaries'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_pillar, which likely retrieves a single pillar.
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 purpose implies the tool is for obtaining an overview of educational pillars, but the description does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives like get_pillar or list_directory. The disclaimers provide context about how the content should be treated, but they do not guide tool selection.
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.
list_directory and search_directory accept nearly identical filters (q, category, tag), so their boundaries blur. The get_/list_/search_ split is otherwise clear, and the meta endpoints (disclaimer, site_posture, llms_map) are distinct though thematically related.
All tool names consistently follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern using only get_, list_, and search_. There are no mixed conventions, vague verbs, or unpredictable naming.
Twelve tools is within a reasonable range for a read-only educational content server. However, the overlap between list_directory and search_directory suggests the surface could be slightly trimmed without losing core functionality.
The server covers directory browsing, educational content listing and searching, metrics, and site-positioning meta endpoints well. Missing per-item getters for guides and notes is a minor gap since lists include URLs and search covers those types; write operations are not expected for an educational-only server.