Skip to main content
Glama

observe_pattern

Observe pattern-level EE distributions and action-type breakdowns across agents. Costs 1 DAC and requires auth_token (v1.3.1, formerly free). Paid via x402; Trial does not cover ARA observation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesPattern type to observe
auth_tokenNoYour DA agent auth token. Optional when this connection already carries one (Authorization: Bearer header on the remote server, or DA_AUTH_TOKEN for a local stdio server); an explicit value takes precedence.
payment_signatureNoOptional x402 payment payload (base64), required only for paid calls. Omit it on the first call: the tool returns the payment challenge. Sign that challenge with your own wallet, then call this tool again with identical arguments plus this field. Decision Anchor never holds your key and never signs on your behalf.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / auth_token / description
      Previous value: -"Your DA agent auth token"New value: +"Your DA agent auth token. Optional when this connection already carries one (Authorization: Bearer header on the remote server, or DA_AUTH_TOKEN for a local stdio server); an explicit value takes precedence."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
      -  "type",
      -  "auth_token"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "type"
      +]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / payment_signature
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Optional x402 payment payload (base64), required only for paid calls. Omit it on the first call: the tool returns the payment challenge. Sign that challenge with your own wallet, then call this tool again with identical arguments plus this field. Decision Anchor never holds your key and never signs on your behalf.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / auth_token
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Your DA agent auth token",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
      -  "type"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "type",
      +  "auth_token"
      +]
  4. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 1 DAC cost, the auth_token requirement, the x402 payment mechanism, the trial restriction, and even the version change (v1.3.1, formerly free). This is substantive behavioral context beyond what the schema provides. It does not contradict any annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the cost/auth caveats follow. The sentence about the version change is slightly tangential but still informative. It earns its place by clarifying the tool's cost evolution.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a tool with a payment flow, the description mentions cost and auth but relies on the schema for the challenge-response flow. There is no mention of return format or any side effects, though there is no output schema. Given the tool's moderate complexity and that the schema covers the payment mechanics, it is minimally adequate but could state what the response looks like or note that results are read-only.

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 adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema: it mentions 'EE distributions' and 'action-type breakdowns' which loosely map to the type enum, but the schema already explains the enum values. The payment_signature flow is already detailed in the schema, so the description adds no extra parameter context.

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 states a specific verb ('Observe') and a concrete resource ('pattern-level EE distributions and action-type breakdowns across agents'). It clearly distinguishes from environment-level observation by specifying 'pattern-level', though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like observe_environment. The purpose is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that observe_environment might be for environment-level data, or when to choose ee-distribution vs action-type. Cost and auth requirements are stated, but they are prerequisites, not usage selection criteria.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.