agency_statusFor a registered agency: its states, rail, terms, founding period, queued and delivered counts, credit balance, and whether the licence was verified. Requires the buyer key issued at confirmation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| buyer_key | Yes | Issued to the licensed contact at confirmation |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is lighter. It adds value by explaining that the buyer key must be the one issued at confirmation, which is an access-related nuance beyond the annotations. It does not go deeper into edge cases like unregistered agencies or error behavior.
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?
A single sentence packs the resource, the full set of returned fields, and the authentication requirement. Nothing is wasted, and the essential content is 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 simple read-only status tool, the description lists the returned fields, identifies the required key, and is supported by clear annotations and a fully covered schema. A minor gap is that it doesn't specify behavior when the agency is not registered or the key is invalid, but the tool's low complexity makes this acceptable.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains the buyer_key as issued to the licensed contact at confirmation. The description repeats that requirement rather than adding new parameter meaning. With full schema coverage, a baseline score 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 names a specific resource (a registered agency) and enumerates the data returned (states, rail, terms, founding period, counts, credit balance, licence verification). It reads as a status/retrieval tool. It doesn't explicitly use a verb like 'retrieves', but the meaning is clear enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like register_agency or request_agent_contact.
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?
The description implies this tool is for checking agency status after registration, and it notes the buyer key requirement, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over siblings such as check_eligibility or data_use_terms. There are no exclusions or alternative routing signals.
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.
Each public- to-consumer and agency-facing tool serves a clearly separate step in the workflow: eligibility, quotes, consent, contact, registration, status, queue draining, and data purchase. There is no meaningful overlap between tool purposes.
All tool names are snake_case and generally descriptive, but they mix action-oriented names like get_quotes and pull_requests with noun-style resource names like market_data and agency_status. This is a minor consistency deviation rather than a chaotic pattern.
Eight tools cover the platform's distinct functional areas without bloat: consumer quote/contact flow, agency registration and queue management, and data market access. Each tool appears necessary and the total count is well-scoped for the server's purpose.
The core workflows are supported end to end: eligibility check leads to quotes, consent leads to agent contact, and agencies can register, check status, and pull routed records. The main gaps are minor administrative operations such as updating agency details or an explicit tool for revoking consent, although POST /forget is referenced.