Skip to main content
Glama

TrustyCap

by com.trustycap

Ask Trusty Guide what to build with

trustycap_guide
Read-onlyIdempotent

Say what the human is trying to build, in their words, and get back the Launch Kits and capabilities that actually fit, why each one matched, what one unit of that business costs at published prices, and a build plan you can act on. Use this when someone says what they want rather than which capability they want. Deterministic: it answers only from the published registry and rate card, so it cannot invent a capability, a kit or a price.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
intentYesWhat the builder said they want to build, in their own words.
launch_kitNoOptional. A Launch Kit id to plan against directly, skipping the recommendation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds a strong behavioral guarantee beyond the annotations: it is deterministic, grounded only in the published registry and rate card, and cannot invent capabilities, kits, or prices. This is valuable safety and reliability context that the readOnly/idempotent annotations do not fully convey.

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?

Three focused sentences with no filler. Each sentence adds a distinct, useful fact: the output summary, the use condition, and the deterministic behavior. The description is front-loaded with the tool's core action and does not repeat schema or annotation details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it enumerates the response content, the input, the use case, and behavioral constraints. It could be slightly more explicit about exact response shape or no-match handling, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches the intent parameter by explaining what happens with it (returns matching kits, reasons, costs, plan) and clarifies launch_kit's role as a way to plan directly without recommendation, though the schema already describes launch_kit adequately.

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 names a concrete flow: take the human's own words, return matching Launch Kits/capabilities, reason for each match, unit cost, and an actionable build plan. It also contrasts with capability-driven tools ('rather than which capability they want'), distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: when the user expresses what they want to build instead of naming a specific capability. It gives clear context for choosing it over capability-selection tools, though it does not name specific alternative tools or provide explicit 'do not use when' exclusions.

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

All TrustyCap 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
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or decision point—capabilities, launch kits, native kits, and production readiness—but trustycap_guide and trustycap_production_readiness can both respond to a human asking what to build, and guide overlaps somewhat with the list_* tools in matching outcomes. The detailed descriptions resolve most ambiguity, so the set is largely clear.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a trustycap_<verb>_<noun> pattern, such as list_capabilities, get_launch_kit, and list_native_kits. trustycap_guide and trustycap_production_readiness break that convention with a bare verb and a noun phrase, but the shared prefix and snake_case style keep the naming mostly predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools is well-scoped for a reference and decisioning server covering three resource families plus guidance. Each tool has a clear purpose, and there are no redundant entries.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers listing and retrieving Launch Kits and Native Kits, enumerating capabilities, guided matching, and production-readiness evaluation. Minor gaps exist—such as no separate capability-detail tool and no tool to execute or install a kit—but those seem outside the server's informational scope.

Resources