compare_storage_tiersHot, warm, and paused storage tiers: current per-GB prices with what each tier means for query latency and when to pick it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context that the tool provides current prices and latency meanings, which is useful beyond annotations. It does not contradict any annotation.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key topics (hot, warm, paused, prices, latency, selection). It contains no fluff and is appropriately sized for an informational tool.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no parameters. The description explains what information is returned: per-GB prices, latency implications, and when to pick each tier. This is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and what it will get back.
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?
There are no parameters in the schema, so the baseline score of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics as there are none.
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 clearly states the tool compares hot, warm, and paused storage tiers, covering per-GB prices, query latency implications, and selection criteria. This is specific and distinguishes it from generic pricing tools like get_pricing.
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 description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_pricing. It implies the tool is for storage-tier comparison, but an agent might not know whether to call this or get_pricing for general pricing information. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.
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 have clearly distinct purposes: search, read, API reference, quickstart, formats, benchmarks. The main overlap is between compare_storage_tiers and get_pricing, which both cover storage-tier pricing and could confuse an agent.
The set mostly follows a predictable get_/list_/read_/search_ verb pattern with snake_case throughout. Minor deviation: read_doc and search_docs use navigation verbs instead of get_/list_, but the pattern remains readable.
Eight tools is well-scoped for a documentation-focused server. Each tool covers a meaningful documentation need without redundancy or bloat.
The surface covers the full documentation workflow: searching docs, reading docs, quickstart, API operations, pricing, storage tiers, formats, and benchmarks. No obvious dead ends or missing core operations.