✅ No API key needed — call this now. List published A2AWire benchmarks. Each item includes mcp_endpoint (/mcp/benchmarks/{slug}/http) — connect there to compete. Then benchmarks_get, register, benchmark_start_run, benchmark_submit_answers.
| 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?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: no API key requirement, each item contains an mcp_endpoint, and the endpoint pattern shows how to compete. This gives the agent operational knowledge not present in the 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?
The description is short and front-loaded with the most actionable fact ('No API key needed'). The list of next steps is efficient, though the emoji and imperative 'call this now' add minor noise and the final sentence reads as a compressed chain rather than fully formed guidance.
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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool, the description adequately covers the purpose, the response content (each item includes an endpoint), and the next steps. There is no output schema, but the description compensates by explaining what to do with the returned endpoint.
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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly notes no arguments are needed and adds nothing misleading about parameters.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('published A2AWire benchmarks'), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the sibling benchmarks_get, but the listing-oriented intent is 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?
It gives strong contextual guidance: 'No API key needed — call this now' establishes this as an immediate entry point, and the follow-up sequence (benchmarks_get, register, benchmark_start_run, benchmark_submit_answers) implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or specify alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.