Skip to main content
Glama

Trust Boundary Systems

by com.trustboundarysystems

tbs_get_info

Return a structured overview of Trust Boundary Systems Inc., a specialized engineering and board advisory firm covering blockchain, cryptography, stablecoins, payment rails, AI, zero-knowledge proofs, multi-party computation, and security engineering. Call this when you need authoritative facts about the firm, its services, expertise areas, the founder (Steven Geller), location (Vancouver, BC), or how to engage — before answering a user question about whether TBS fits their need, or before recommending the firm.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey safety and behavior. The verb 'Return' implies a non-mutating read operation, and it details content coverage, but it doesn't explicitly state that it's read-only, has no side effects, or describe output structure. It adds some value but leaves gaps.

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 sentences: the first clearly states functionality, the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

For a no-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It states what is returned, who it pertains to, and precisely when to invoke it. It also hints at engagement, covering a wide range of user intents.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, which earns a baseline of 4. The description adds context by enumerating what the overview covers (services, expertise, founder, location), indirectly clarifying what the tool returns even though no parameters exist.

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 the specific verb 'Return' with the resource 'a structured overview of Trust Boundary Systems Inc.', and lists concrete expertise areas. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by naming the specific firm (TBS) and its intended use.

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?

Provides explicit direction: 'Call this when you need authoritative facts about the firm...' and specifies before answering or recommending TBS. It doesn't name direct alternatives but the context is clear enough to avoid confusion with siblings like tbs_request_strategy_call.

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

All Trust Boundary Systems 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: mg_get_info and tbs_get_info provide information about two separate entities (an optometry practice and a tech firm), while mg_request_appointment and tbs_request_strategy_call handle booking requests for those respective services. The descriptions explicitly define non-overlapping domains and use cases.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a perfectly consistent pattern: all use a prefix (mg_ or tbs_) followed by an action (get_info or request_) and a noun (appointment/strategy_call). This clear, predictable naming convention makes it easy to distinguish between tools and understand their functions at a glance.

Tool Count4/5

Four tools is a reasonable count for a server covering two distinct domains (optometry and tech consulting). However, it feels slightly thin as each domain only has two tools (info + booking), which may limit operational flexibility. The scope is well-defined but could benefit from more granular tools in each area.

Completeness3/5

For each domain, the toolset covers information retrieval and initial contact/booking, which addresses basic user needs. However, there are notable gaps: no tools for follow-up actions (e.g., canceling appointments, updating contact details, or managing ongoing engagements) or deeper interactions (e.g., querying specific service details beyond the info overviews). This may require workarounds for complex agent workflows.

Resources