mi_cuentaTu plan, cuota de informes, funciones disponibles, scopes del token, límites de uso y URLs útiles (precios, integraciones). Requiere cuenta (scope cuenta:read).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cta | No | ||
| org | No | ||
| plan | Yes | ||
| urls | Yes | ||
| token | Yes | ||
| limites | Yes | ||
| usuario | Yes | ||
| funciones | Yes | ||
| disclosure | No | ||
| cuota_informes | No |
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 declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying the required OAuth scope and the kind of account data exposed. There is no contradiction with the 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 one compact sentence that front-loads the data categories and appends the scope requirement with no redundancy. Every element earns its place.
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 parameterless, read-only account-info tool with an output schema present, the description adequately covers what data is returned, the authentication requirement, and the safety profile. No critical missing context is apparent.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is no parameter information for the description to add. Per the 0-parameter baseline, this receives a 4.
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 enumerates the exact contents of the account resource (plan, report quota, available functions, token scopes, usage limits, useful URLs), making the tool's purpose clear. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'shows', but the resource and its attributes are specific enough to distinguish it from siblings.
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?
It provides a clear precondition: an account with the `cuenta:read` scope is required, which tells an agent when it can be invoked. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives such as `planes` or `informe`; the usage context is mostly implied.
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.
Most tools are grouped into recognizable clusters (alertas, checkout, favoritos, notas), but several retrieval/report tools overlap: `fetch` and `subasta` both expose an auction record, and `analisis_subasta` and `informe` both provide analysis. The descriptions give enough distinguishing detail, but an agent must read closely to avoid misselection.
Naming mixes Spanish and English, and mixes conventions: `alertas_crear` and `buscar_subastas` are Spanish compound names, `create_checkout`/`cancel_checkout` are English verb_noun, while `fetch`, `search`, `subasta` and `informe` are bare words. There is internal consistency within clusters, but no coherent pattern across the full toolset.
32 tools is a large, heavy surface for one MCP server, exceeding the 25+ threshold where consolidation is usually needed. Many tools earn their place given the broad platform, but the multiple search/retrieval variants and five checkout lifecycle tools could be streamlined.
The server covers the core domain thoroughly: auction search/retrieval, viability reports, alerts, favorites, registry notes, market statistics, plans/account, and UCP checkout all have lifecycle coverage. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit report-purchase history and some payment steps being delegated to a browser, but agents can complete most workflows.