Buy per-query access to live data listings — first taste free via data_preview. Listing: cisaalerts: CISA Cybersecurity & ICS Advisories (0.01 USDC/query). Returns fund instructions after data_session_open.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating the tool 'returns fund instructions' rather than executing a payment, and by giving concrete pricing and listing details. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the most relevant operational details: free preview, price, and required prior step. Every clause earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.
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 tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the listing, price, precondition, and return behavior. The main gap is not clarifying how the returned fund instructions should be used or how this differs from data_session_fund, but overall it gives enough context for correct invocation.
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 input schema covers 100% of the single parameter, including its UUID format and provenance from data_session_open. The description adds only marginal context by implying the session must be a buyer data session, which the schema already states. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Buy per-query access to live data listings,' which clearly states the tool's function. It also identifies the specific listing (cisaalerts) and price, and notes that it returns fund instructions. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from the sibling tool data_session_fund, which likely has a similar funding purpose.
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 description gives useful sequencing signals: 'first taste free via data_preview' suggests trying preview first, and 'after data_session_open' implies the session must already be opened. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or compare it against data_session_fund, so it stops short of full guidance.
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.