Skip to main content
Glama

Agentic Endpoints

by com.oliverkiss

Compress text to a token budget

compress
Read-onlyIdempotent

Reduce text to fit a token budget, preserving whole sentences and reporting before/after token estimates. Costs $0.005 in USDC on Base, paid via the x402 protocol.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesText to compress
strategyNoCompression strategy (default extractive)
target_tokensNoApproximate token budget

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesThe compressed text
ratioYescompressed_length / original_length. Lower is more aggressive.
strategyNoStrategy applied, echoing your request
original_lengthYesInput length in characters
compressed_lengthYesOutput length in characters

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful extra context: it preserves whole sentences, reports before/after token estimates, and discloses the $0.005 USDC payment on Base via x402. This is strong behavioral transparency, though it does not cover edge-case behavior such as overly small token budgets.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the cost/payment detail is presented as a separate concise clause.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the complete input schema, the available output schema, and annotations, the description covers purpose, behavior, reporting, and cost. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking the tool is missing.

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?

The input schema fully documents all three parameters at 100% coverage, so the description does not need to restate them. The description adds no per-parameter nuance beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Reduce'), the resource ('text'), and the goal (fit a token budget), while also specifying behavioral details: preserving whole sentences and reporting before/after token estimates. It is easily distinguished from the sibling tools, none of which perform text compression.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description conveys clear context: use this tool when text must be reduced to fit a token budget. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but no competing sibling exists and the intended use is easy to infer.

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

All Agentic Endpoints 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool maps to a distinct resource and action: meetings have import/list/search/get, the once-key system has claim/complete/release, vault has store/retrieve/exists/list/delete/rotate_token, and compress/pdf_parse/scrape are separate utilities. No two tools appear to perform the same side effect, so an agent should not struggle to choose among them.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tools use consistent snake_case and mostly follow a domain_verb pattern (meetings_*, once_key_*, vault_*), with standalone verbs like compress, scrape, and pdf_parse for single utilities. The naming is predictable and easy to extend.

Tool Count4/5

At 16 tools the server is just above the ideal 3-15 range, but the count is justified by six distinct capability clusters. Each tool earns its place, and nothing feels redundant.

Completeness4/5

Core lifecycles are covered well: vault has full CRUD plus token rotation, once-key has claim/complete/release, and meetings provide import/search/get/list. Minor gaps include no meeting update/delete and no direct namespace management, but these are workable rather than blocking.

Resources