Skip to main content
Glama

meta-agent-tools

by br.app.classificado
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

MCP index signals

mcp_index_signals
Read-onlyIdempotent

Does this MCP server still answer, with which access, and is its repository alive? What independent MCP indexes measured about one listing of this catalog, each credited with its license. Take the id from list_listings. A signal belongs to a listing only when it is the SAME object: the name in the official MCP registry, the exact remote endpoint URL or the GitHub owner/repo, in that order. A shared domain never matches — two servers on one host are different products. Up to 20 signals, one per index and record.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
listingYesListing id from list_listings.
retry_keyNoOptional retry key, up to 80 ASCII characters; same read for five minutes.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / api_pass
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "MAT-only private pass: mat_<32 random hex>_<64 random hex>. Generate and save before buying.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / api_pass
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "MAT-only private pass: mat_<32 random hex>_<64 random hex>. Generate and save before buying.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / retry_key
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional retry key, up to 80 ASCII characters; same read for five minutes.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: a cap of 20 signals (one per index and record), the ordered identity rules (registry name, exact endpoint URL, GitHub owner/repo), and the explicit exclusion that a shared domain never matches. It still omits staleness/freshness of the signals beyond the retry window.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loading is decent, but the opening is a pair of rhetorical questions and the identity rules are packed into dashes and asides. The content is relevant yet could be stated in fewer, tighter sentences without losing the constraints.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden. It hints at the content (does the server answer, with which access, is the repo alive, which indexes and licenses) and the count limit, but never specifies the shape or fields of a signal, leaving the agent to guess the response structure.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description only echoes that the id comes from list_listings. It adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The second sentence states a concrete resource and scope: independent MCP indexes' measurements about one listing of this catalog, with license attribution. The opening rhetorical questions convey the content (liveness, access level, repository health) but frame purpose as queries rather than a stated verb, leaving the action slightly implicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It tells the agent where the id comes from ('Take the id from list_listings') and gives a matching rule for when a signal attaches to a listing. However, it never contrasts this with adjacent tools such as mcp_index_search, index_stats, get_listing, or listing_status, so the agent must infer when to choose this over them.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All meta-agent-tools toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Context Every Agent Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and keep it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources