Your current tier, its limits, and how much you've used today. Requires your key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vigil_key | No | Legacy credential argument. Prefer the HTTP Authorization: Bearer header; omit this argument when that header authenticates the request. |
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?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup and mentions key requirements, but it does not explicitly confirm there are no side effects, nor does it describe response format, error behavior, or how usage limits are calculated.
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, focused sentences. The main return content is front-loaded, and the authentication note is kept separate, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly with no wasted words.
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 is simple with only one optional parameter and no output schema, so the description covers the core purpose and credential requirement. However, it omits any detail about response structure, what 'limits' means in practice, and how to distinguish this from other vigils info tools, leaving some gaps for an agent.
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 input schema fully describes the vigil_key parameter, including the preferred Authorization header alternative, so the description adds little. 'Requires your key' is consistent with schema semantics but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.
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 what the tool reports: current tier, limits, and today's usage. It is specific enough to distinguish it from most sibling tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get' and could still be confused with vigil_info.
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 gives a prerequisite ('Requires your key') but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as vigil_info or vigil_pricing, and does not mention exclusions or preferred contexts.
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.
The tools are organized into clear domains—receipts/notarization, leases, journals, watchdogs, and account management—and each tool has a distinct resource or action. Minor confusion is possible between vigil_anchor and vigil_anchors, or between the various verification tools, but the descriptions generally make the boundaries clear.
All tools share the vigil_ prefix and use snake_case, but the verb/noun ordering is inconsistent: vigil_get_receipt and vigil_delete_watchdog use verb-first, while vigil_journal_get and vigil_journal_delete use resource-first. Several tools are also pure nouns (vigil_chain, vigil_usage, vigil_lease_status), making the overall pattern mixed but still readable.
At 26 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold and feels heavy for a single MCP server, even though the tools cluster into several subsystems. Some status, info, and lease-listing tools could plausibly be consolidated without losing much capability.
The core lifecycle coverage is strong: receipts can be created, read, verified, and audited via the chain; leases have grant/renew/revoke/status/verify; journals have full CRUD; watchdogs have set/delete/status/heartbeat. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct way to update a watchdog without deleting and recreating it, but these are workable.