Agent contact $0.10 x402. After the 1st message: 429 + Retry-After (backoff).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | What to call the person writing. | |
| Yes | Where to reply. | ||
| form_ts | No | When the form was opened; it is the anti-robot of the human path. | |
| message | Yes | What you want to say. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / email / descriptionAdded value: +"Where to reply."Input schema / properties / form_ts / descriptionAdded value: +"When the form was opened; it is the anti-robot of the human path."Input schema / properties / message / descriptionAdded value: +"What you want to say."Input schema / properties / name / descriptionAdded value: +"What to call the person writing."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description does disclose two behavioral traits: a $0.10 cost and a 429 Retry-After backoff after the first message. This adds some transparency, but it does not cover other expected behaviors like response format or side effects beyond rate limiting.
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 very short but poorly structured. It front-loads a cost figure and rate limit note rather than a clear purpose, making it less informative despite its brevity.
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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does, what the parameters mean beyond schema, or what the response will be, leaving the agent without enough information to call it confidently.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters (name, email, message, form_ts), leaving all semantics to the schema.
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 'Agent contact $0.10 x402' is cryptic and does not clearly state a verb+resource. It hints at contacting an agent but omits what action occurs (e.g., sending a message). It does not distinguish from siblings like create_guest or list_comments.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions a rate limit and cost, with no context about appropriate scenarios or 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.
Most tools target distinct resources or actions, and descriptions are clear enough to avoid major confusion. The main overlap is between list_listings and list_mcp_servers as registry views, though their scope differs.
The set mixes verb_noun names like create_listing and list_comments with noun-style names like api_index, billing, contact, and health. This is readable but not a consistent naming convention across the whole server.
Twelve tools is a reasonable, well-scoped count for a registry-and-commerce server. Each tool has a distinct role, with no obvious bloat or redundancy.
Discovery, creation, liking, and commenting are covered, but there are no update or delete operations for listings, nor any comment management beyond listing comments. These are notable lifecycle gaps for a registry-style tool.