Agent contact $0.10 x402. After the 1st message: 429 + Retry-After (backoff).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | What to call the person writing. | |
| Yes | Where to reply. | ||
| form_ts | No | When the form was opened; it is the anti-robot of the human path. | |
| message | Yes | What you want to say. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / email / descriptionAdded value: +"Where to reply."Input schema / properties / form_ts / descriptionAdded value: +"When the form was opened; it is the anti-robot of the human path."Input schema / properties / message / descriptionAdded value: +"What you want to say."Input schema / properties / name / descriptionAdded value: +"What to call the person writing."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful information: the call costs $0.10 and triggers a 429 with Retry-After requiring backoff. However, it does not state whether this is a mutating action, what side effects occur, or what authorization is needed.
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 text is very short and free of fluff, but the structure is cryptic and jarring. 'Agent contact $0.10 x402' is unclear, and the rate-limit note is jammed into a fragment. It is concise at the expense of communicative clarity.
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?
This is a fairly simple contact tool with no output schema, so the description must explain the expected result or success behavior. It only warns about cost and rate limiting, leaving the agent to guess what a successful call returns and what exactly happens after sending the message.
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 documents all four parameters with descriptions, giving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The unusual form_ts field is already explained in the schema.
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 never states a clear verb and resource action. 'Agent contact' reads as a label, while '$0.10 x402' is cryptic and the 429/Retry-After note describes rate-limit behavior rather than the tool's actual function. It does not distinguish how this tool differs from its siblings.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisite context, and no explanation of what kind of request this is for. The only hint is that calls are rate limited after the first message, which is a behavioral constraint rather than usage direction.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but list_listings and list_mcp_servers overlap since both return listings, with the latter being a filtered subset. This minor ambiguity could cause occasional misselection.
The majority of tools follow verb_noun snake_case (create_listing, get_listing, like_listing), but several are bare nouns (billing, contact, health) or compound nouns (api_index), breaking the consistent pattern and reducing predictability.
12 tools is well-scoped for a registry server covering listings, comments, likes, billing, and health. Each tool has a clear purpose and the count feels neither thin nor bloated.
The listing lifecycle is incomplete: create, get, like, and list exist, but there is no update or delete for listings. Additionally, only list_comments is available—no create, edit, or delete for comments—creating notable workflow gaps.