list_providersRanked providers in a category with editorial score (0–5), one-line summary, entry price and partner disclosure.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| category | Yes | Category slug |
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?
The annotations declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description does not contradict that. It adds useful context about the response contents (editorial score, summary, price, disclosure), which enriches the behavioral picture without conflicting with annotations.
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 a single, tightly written sentence with no redundancy or extraneous information. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's output.
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?
The description provides a fairly complete picture of what the tool returns (ranked providers with specific fields) despite the absence of an output schema. It does not explain ranking methodology or the effect of 'limit', but the core context is present.
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 only 50% (only 'category' is described; 'limit' is not). The description does not add any meaning for 'limit' either, failing to compensate for the schema gap. Parameter semantics are therefore incomplete.
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 clearly states the tool lists ranked providers for a category, with specific attributes (editorial score, summary, price, disclosure). The verb 'List' and resource 'ranked providers' are specific. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like compare_providers or search, but the name and scope make the purpose distinct enough.
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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus search or compare_providers. The description implies its use for ranked lists, but it never states scenarios, exclusions, or conditions. This leaves the agent without clear usage direction.
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 tool has a clearly distinct purpose: listing categories, providers, articles, getting specific items, comparing providers, and searching. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb-noun pattern (compare_providers, get_article, list_categories, search), with clear and predictable naming.
8 tools is well within the ideal range for a focused content and comparison site, covering browsing, retrieval, comparison, and search without unnecessary bloat.
The set covers the core user journey: discover categories, list and compare providers, read articles, and search. Missing write/update operations, but those are not expected for a public information site, so the coverage is appropriate.