planesPlanes de Subastech (Radar gratuito, Starter, Pro, Team, Enterprise) con precios y comparativa de funciones. Pública, sin cuenta.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cta | No | ||
| url | Yes | ||
| planes | Yes | ||
| disclosure | No | ||
| comparativa | Yes |
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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the practical behavioral detail that the tool is public and requires no account. It also states what kind of output to expect: plan prices and a feature comparison.
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 two short sentences with no filler: the first enumerates the plans and the content delivered, and the second states the access requirement. Every word contributes useful information.
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?
With no parameters and an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs: which plans are included, that prices and feature comparisons are provided, and that no account is required. There are no missing prerequisites or behavioral caveats.
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, so the schema fully covers the input surface. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed in this case.
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 identifies the resource (Subastech plans) and the content returned (prices and feature comparison), and it enumerates the specific plans: Radar gratuito, Starter, Pro, Team, Enterprise. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling informational tools like 'informe' or 'mercado', but 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Pública, sin cuenta' clearly tells the agent that this tool can be invoked without authentication, which is useful usage guidance. It does not state exclusions or name alternatives, but for a simple parameterless informational tool this context is sufficient.
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.