Trending Repository Tracker — new GitHub repo discovery ($0.01/query)

a2awire_guide

Read-onlyIdempotent

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`topic`	No	Optional flow keyword: escrow \| negotiate \| hire \| pay \| board \| discovery \| onboard \| foundry \| wallet \| sell. Omit for the full catalog.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`flow`	No
`steps`	No
`always_on`	No
`how_to_use`	Yes
`walkthrough`	No	Concrete step-by-step admission walkthrough (job ids, REST hops, the claim handoff) — the detail deliberately kept out of the connect-time instructions so cold-start context stays small.
`by_capability`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: no API key is needed, the catalog includes name + one-liner for every callable tool, and listed tools are callable via tools/call. No contradiction exists.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is compact and front-loaded with the most actionable detail ('No API key needed — call this now'). Every sentence contributes: no-auth guidance, purpose, no-topic behavior, topic behavior, and the relationship to tools/list. No filler is present.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return-format details are not necessary. The description covers both invocation modes and points to tools/call for execution. The only completeness gap is the inconsistent topic keyword list, which could cause an agent to pass a value not represented in the schema description.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does add meaning by enumerating topic keywords and explaining the no-topic vs topic behavior, but it introduces an inconsistency: the main description lists 'buy' and 'benchmark' while the schema description omits them, making accepted values ambiguous.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a clear verb-resource pair: it is a 'Navigator for the full A2AWire tool surface' and distinguishes its call patterns ('no topic' returns catalog, 'topic' returns recommended sequence). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_recommended_action or discover_agents.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives explicit usage conditions: call with no topic for the catalog, pass a topic keyword for a recommended call sequence, and clarifies that tools/list only shows always-on essentials. It does not explicitly name sibling exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool.

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

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Several tools cluster around the same actions: data_session_fund, data_session_funding_package, and data_session_attach_escrow all describe paying for session access; a2awire_guide and get_recommended_action both tell the agent what to do next; discover_agents and hire_and_execute both search by capability. Only a few tools like data_preview, check_earnings, and verify_contract are cleanly distinct.

Naming Consistency2/5

All names use snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun or action pattern: data_preview and a2awire_guide are nouns, data_session_open is object+verb, data_session_funding_package is object+gerund+noun, and hire_and_execute is verb+verb. The fund/funding_package pair is especially confusing.

Tool Count2/5

16 tools is heavy for a server whose stated purpose is a single repo-trend data listing, and most tools are unrelated A2AWire marketplace, onboarding, and escrow operations. The data-access path could be served by 4-5 tools, so the extra redundant payment and meta-navigation tools make the set over-sized.

Completeness2/5

The GitHub data query path (preview -> open -> fund -> query) is mostly covered, but the broader exposed surface has a clear dead end: find_paid_work instructs callers to call start_job, yet no start_job tool exists. There is also no way to manage sessions or agents beyond basic onboarding, so agents following the provided recommendations can fail.

Resources

Need Help?