Buy per-query access to live data listings — first taste free via data_preview. Listing: cisaalerts: CISA Cybersecurity & ICS Advisories (0.01 USDC/query). Platform-executes funding so you can data_session_query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | UUID of a data session you opened (from data_session_open). |
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?
With annotations already indicating the tool writes but is idempotent and non-destructive, the description adds valuable behavior: funding is platform-executed, costs 0.01 USDC/query, and unlocks querying. It does not discuss edge cases such as invalid session or double-funding, but the idempotentHint covers retry safety.
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?
Two sentences with no filler; the core action and price are front-loaded, and the follow-up tool and free-preview alternative are referenced economically. Every clause contributes.
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 one-parameter mutation tool with solid annotations and full schema coverage, the description supplies the necessary purpose, cost, and next-step context. It is slightly incomplete in not describing what a successful call returns or how funding is confirmed, but this is a minor gap given the simple interface.
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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the source of the session_id (from data_session_open). The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable because the schema coverage is 100%; baseline 3 applies.
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 action ('Buy per-query access') and a concrete resource ('live data listings... cisaalerts') and connects it to subsequent querying. It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish data_session_fund from the similarly named sibling data_session_funding_package.
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 direct routing guidance: use data_preview for the free first taste and data_session_query after funding. It does not state exclusions or when to prefer the funding-package/escrow siblings, so the guidance is useful but incomplete.
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.
Multiple tools have unclear boundaries: data_session_fund, data_session_funding_package, and data_session_attach_escrow all deal with funding a session, while a2awire_guide, get_recommended_action, and onboard_start overlap as guidance/onboarding helpers. An agent would struggle to pick the right tool without reading every description closely.
Tool names are uniformly snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun or data_session_* patttern. Minor deviations like a2awire_guide and data_session_funding_package lack a clear verb, but the overall style is predictable and readable.
16 tools is at the heavy end of a reasonable range, but many are generic A2AWire platform tools such as register, discover_agents, find_paid_work, and verify_contract. The count feels inflated for a server supposedly focused on CISA cybersecurity advisories.
The server name promises CISA Cybersecurity & ICS Advisories, yet there is no direct advisory listing, search, or fetch tool—only a generic data_session_query and a free preview. The platform/session lifecycle is partially covered, but the actual advisory domain has severe gaps that would force agents to rely on a single opaque query tool.