Browse the agent-to-agent tool marketplace. Discover tools that other agents have built and published.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number | |
| layer | No | Filter by layer | |
| limit | No | Max results | |
| status | No | Filter by status |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / layer / descriptionPrevious value: -"Filter by layer (1 or 2)"New value: +"Filter by layer"Input schema / properties / layer / enumAdded value: +[
+ "layer1",
+ "layer2"
+]Input schema / properties / layer / typePrevious value: -"number"New value: +"string"Input schema / properties / status / enumAdded value: +[
+ "active",
+ "suspended",
+ "deprecated",
+ "defunct"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It only states 'browse' and 'discover', omitting any behavioral traits like read-only nature, pagination behavior, or side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's safety profile.
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 description is extremely concise with two short sentences, no redundant information, and is efficiently front-loaded.
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 listing tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain pagination, default behavior, or response fields. This leaves the agent guessing about how to use parameters effectively.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond 'marketplace' context, which is already implicit from the name. 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 uses 'browse' and 'discover' clearly indicating the tool lists marketplace tools, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_classifications or list_decisions. However, it could be more specific about the information returned (e.g., tool metadata, pricing).
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_classifications or list_decisions. The description does not mention any context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.