brief_ping
Prüft, ob Briefversand (Post via LetterXpress) verfügbar/bezahlt ist.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Tamgara
by com.tamgara
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds minimal context by mentioning 'verfügbar/bezahlt' (available/paid), but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or how errors are handled. Lacking these details, the behavioral transparency is insufficient.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool, the description sufficiently explains the action, but it does not describe the output or how to interpret the result. This leaves a gap in completeness, though the simplicity of the tool mitigates the impact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description aligns with the empty schema, and the baseline score of 4 applies since no parameter documentation is needed.
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 uses a specific verb 'Prüft' (checks) and specifies the resource 'Briefversand (Post via LetterXpress)', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like fax_ping. It states exactly what is checked: availability and payment status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended usage is implied: to verify letter shipping availability before sending. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like fax_ping or account_balance, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool targets a distinct action and resource: fax, brief, envelope, template, account, etc. There is no noticeable overlap; even fill_pdf and fill_template are clearly differentiated by type of PDF.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., account_balance, fax_confirm, search_templates). No mixing of conventions or irregular styles.
Tool Count3/5
With 33 tools, the server covers multiple subdomains (PDF, fax, postal, signatures, templates). This is on the higher side but still reasonable for a comprehensive document processing server. However, it could benefit from consolidation.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers core document workflows: fill, sign, scan, fax, mail, template exploration, and account management. Minor gaps exist (e.g., PDF merging or splitting), but most user journeys are supported.