Read published consulting services, pricing policy and contact URL. Use to assess engagement fit; does not book or send anything.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| language | No | en |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pricing | Yes | ||
| language | Yes | ||
| services | Yes | ||
| contactUrl | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / properties / pricing / properties / currencyAdded value: +{
+ "const": "EUR",
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / pricing / properties / hourlyRateAdded value: +{
+ "const": 120,
+ "type": "number"
+}Output schema / properties / pricing / properties / publishedRates / constPrevious value: -falseNew value: +trueOutput schema / properties / pricing / properties / unitAdded value: +{
+ "const": "hour",
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / pricing / properties / vatIncludedAdded value: +{
+ "const": false,
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Output schema / properties / pricing / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "type",
- "publishedRates",
- "url"
-]New value: +[
+ "type",
+ "publishedRates",
+ "hourlyRate",
+ "currency",
+ "unit",
+ "vatIncluded",
+ "url"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it reads published services, pricing, and contact data, and it has no side effects like booking or sending. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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?
Two short sentences contain all key information: what is read, what it is used for, and what it does not do. The most important information is front-loaded and there is no filler.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with one optional enum-constrained parameter and an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete. It names the exact contents returned, states the assessment purpose, and clarifies non-action, leaving no operational ambiguity.
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 schema has 0% description coverage and the description adds no parameter guidance. Although the single optional 'language' parameter is well constrained by its enum and default, the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage as required by this dimension.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Read published consulting services, pricing policy and contact URL.' It also differentiates itself by explicitly saying it 'does not book or send anything,' so an agent knows exactly what this tool is and is not for.
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 clear use case: 'Use to assess engagement fit.' It also provides an exclusion by noting it does not book or send anything. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like read_document or search_docs, so the when-not-to-use guidance is partial rather than complete.
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 three tools are mostly distinct: list_services gives a high-level overview, read_document fetches a specific file, and search_docs finds content by keyword. There is minor overlap in that pricing information might be reachable through both list_services and read_document, but the purposes remain clear.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: list_services, read_document, search_docs. The use of 'docs' as a noun is a minor abbreviation but does not break the overall convention.
Three tools is a small but fitting set for a consulting documentation server. Each tool serves a distinct, useful function and none feel redundant or excessive for the stated scope.
The tool surface covers the main needs: discovering services, reading specific documents, and searching documentation. A minor gap is that there is no explicit way to list all available documents, but search_docs and read_document on index paths cover most browsing workflows.