Skip to main content
Glama

Cromanion

by com.cromanion

cromanion_impact

Read-only

What the agent has actually changed: visitors who saw it versus the 10% held back as a control. Read liftStatus before reporting anything — learn means nothing has been shown yet and insufficient means the arms are too small to tell signal from noise. Neither is 'no lift'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteIdNoWhich site this call is about. Only needed when your credential covers more than one — cromanion_grants lists them and says whether it is required. Omitting it with several is refused rather than guessed at.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes
impactYesExposed arm versus the held-back control. Read `liftStatus` FIRST — it decides whether the numbers beside it mean anything yet.
readMeNoWhat each liftStatus means. `learn` = nothing shown yet, `insufficient` = arms too small to separate from noise. Neither is 'no lift'.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / siteId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Which site this call is about. Only needed when your credential covers more than one — cromanion_grants lists them and says whether it is required. Omitting it with several is refused rather than guessed at.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "impact": {
+      "description": "Exposed arm versus the held-back control. Read `liftStatus` FIRST — it decides whether the numbers beside it mean anything yet.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "readMe": {
+      "description": "What each liftStatus means. `learn` = nothing shown yet, `insufficient` = arms too small to separate from noise. Neither is 'no lift'.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "ok",
+    "impact"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the critical interpretive nuance that `learn` and `insufficient` statuses do not mean 'no lift', and explains the holdout control design. This prevents misinterpretation of results and reveals behavior around inconclusive or not-yet-shown data. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Three sentences each carry essential information: what the tool measures, the prerequisite status check, and the meaning of ambiguous statuses. It is appropriately sized with no filler, though the opening noun phrase could have been phrased as a clear verb statement for quicker parsing.

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?

For a low-complexity, read-only tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description provides the key interpretive context needed to correctly use the result. It explains the control group and how to read liftStatus, which is sufficient for most agents. It stops short of describing all possible status values or how to interpret a true 'no lift' result, but the output schema can fill that gap.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already fully documents siteId including when it's required and the consequence of omitting it. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline 3 applies; the schema carries the semantic load.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clarifies that the tool reports the effect of what the agent changed, comparing visitors who saw it against a 10% holdout control. Though it lacks an explicit verb like 'read', the annotation title supplies 'Read measured lift against the holdout', making the purpose clear. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like cromanion_site_status or cromanion_surfaces, but the experimental lift framing sets it apart.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description gives clear workflow guidance: read `liftStatus` before reporting anything, and explains that `learn` and `insufficient` are not 'no lift'. However, it provides no explicit comparison to alternatives or when not to use this tool, so usage context is implied rather than fully spelled out.

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

All Cromanion toolsInspect
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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool maps to a distinct resource or action—state reads (config, pending, grants, site_status), mutations (set_*, add_goal, decide), and lifecycle steps (open_claim, verify_claim, claim_domain) are clearly separated by detailed descriptions. Even similar-sounding tools like install_check vs site_status are explicitly differentiated.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools share the cromanion_ prefix and snake_case, but the action-object pattern is inconsistent: many are verb_noun (set_mode, verify_claim), while others are bare nouns or verbs (config, pending, crawl, decide, surfaces). This mixed convention is readable but not predictable.

Tool Count3/5

24 tools is at the high end; the server covers a broad domain and each tool has a distinct job, but the set feels heavy with many narrow configuration endpoints (set_brand, set_voice, surfaces, exclusions). It is not bloated enough to be chaotic, but it is borderline.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the full lifecycle from claim/verify/install through goal definition, rules, decisions, measurement, and lead delivery. Minor gaps exist—no account/site deletion, no broader integration management—but agents can accomplish core workflows without dead ends.

Resources