PressureDesk
Server Details
Read-only buyer-side MCP spend gate for paid APIs, MCP endpoints, and x402 routes. Returns BUY / WAIT / AVOID with maxSpendUsd, receipt expectations, trust/freshness health, safety boundaries, and next action before an agent spends.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.9/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, such as evaluation, access request, freshness, dossier retrieval, payment status, metadata, preview, and health. No overlap is apparent.
All tool names follow the consistent pattern 'pressuredesk_' with descriptive snake_case terms, e.g., pressuredesk_evaluate_tool, pressuredesk_founding_access.
With 9 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of evaluating API endpoints and managing access, avoiding both excess and deficiency.
The tools cover the core workflows: evaluation, access, freshness, dossier, payment status, metadata, preview, and health. Minor gaps like initiating a payment are absent but the set is largely complete for a read-only service.
Available Tools
9 toolspressuredesk_agent_homeAutonomyForge Agent HomeARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Return the public-safe one-call AutonomyForge product storefront and next action.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| kind | No | Machine-readable response kind, for example source-health, agent-home, or tool-buyer-dossier. |
| status | No | Readiness, payment, or request status when present. |
| product | No | Product name when the response is a public product or route packet. |
| decision | No | BUY / WAIT / AVOID decision packet when the tool evaluates a paid target. |
| trustPacket | No | Receipt, freshness, source, and safety-boundary information for agent spend decisions. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so description adds 'public-safe' and 'one-call' which align but don't significantly extend behavioral transparency. No mention of caching or response format.
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?
Single sentence, 11 words, efficient. Front-loaded with verb 'Return'. No redundant or extraneous information.
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?
Given no parameters and presence of output schema (though content not shown), description covers what the tool returns. Could be slightly improved by elaborating on 'next action' or indicating whether it's a single object or list.
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?
No parameters in schema, so baseline is 4. Description adds meaning by stating it returns 'product storefront and next action', which is valuable beyond the empty schema.
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?
Description clearly states it returns the storefront and next action, with qualifiers 'public-safe' and 'one-call'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pressuredesk_evaluate_tool and pressuredesk_get_dossier by implying it is the entry point, though 'next action' could be more specific.
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?
Implied usage as the first call for the AutonomyForge product, but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., going directly to pressuredesk_founding_access). No when-not-to-use scenarios mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
pressuredesk_evaluate_toolEvaluate Paid Tool SpendARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Return a read-only BUY / WAIT / AVOID spend-gate packet before an agent pays for a target API, MCP endpoint, or tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | No | Buyer task or agent intent that explains why the target might be worth paying for. | |
| target | Yes | Paid API, x402 endpoint, MCP server, or tool URL to evaluate before spend. | |
| priceUsd | No | Quoted target price in USD for this one prospective call. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| kind | No | Machine-readable response kind, for example source-health, agent-home, or tool-buyer-dossier. |
| status | No | Readiness, payment, or request status when present. |
| product | No | Product name when the response is a public product or route packet. |
| decision | No | BUY / WAIT / AVOID decision packet when the tool evaluates a paid target. |
| trustPacket | No | Receipt, freshness, source, and safety-boundary information for agent spend decisions. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states it's read-only and returns a decision packet, which aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint). It adds context about the gating behavior that annotations alone don't provide.
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?
One sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with the core purpose. Efficient and clear.
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?
Given the output schema exists (not shown) and the input schema covers all parameters, the description is complete for an evaluation tool. It could mention return format briefly, but output schema handles that.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.
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 it returns a read-only BUY/WAIT/AVOID packet for cost evaluation before paying for a target. It specifies the resource (spend-gate packet) and action (return), distinguishing it clearly from siblings like pressuredesk_get_dossier or pressuredesk_live_payment_status.
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 explicitly indicates when to use: before an agent pays for an API, endpoint, or tool. It does not mention when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is clear and siblings do not overlap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
pressuredesk_founding_accessPressureDesk Founding AccessARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Return the read-only manual founding-access request packet, required fields, disallowed secrets, and buyer proof links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| kind | No | Machine-readable response kind, for example source-health, agent-home, or tool-buyer-dossier. |
| status | No | Readiness, payment, or request status when present. |
| product | No | Product name when the response is a public product or route packet. |
| decision | No | BUY / WAIT / AVOID decision packet when the tool evaluates a paid target. |
| trustPacket | No | Receipt, freshness, source, and safety-boundary information for agent spend decisions. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and absence of destructiveness. The description adds that the packet is 'manual' and outlines its contents (required fields, disallowed secrets, buyer proof links), providing useful context beyond the annotations.
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 concise sentence (15 words) that front-loads the action verb 'Return' and efficiently captures all necessary information without redundancy.
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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (packet with specific components). No additional context is needed.
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?
No parameters; schema coverage is 100% by default. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4; the description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.
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 returns a read-only manual founding-access request packet, including required fields, disallowed secrets, and buyer proof links. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like pressuredesk_get_dossier by focusing on founding access.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
pressuredesk_freshnessPressureDesk FreshnessARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Return latest snapshot freshness state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| kind | No | Machine-readable response kind, for example source-health, agent-home, or tool-buyer-dossier. |
| status | No | Readiness, payment, or request status when present. |
| product | No | Product name when the response is a public product or route packet. |
| decision | No | BUY / WAIT / AVOID decision packet when the tool evaluates a paid target. |
| trustPacket | No | Receipt, freshness, source, and safety-boundary information for agent spend decisions. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. Description adds no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, so it is adequate but not enriched.
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?
Description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the key information.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It does not need to explain output since output schema exists.
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?
Tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and description adds no further parameter information, which is acceptable.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'Return' and resource 'latest snapshot freshness state', but does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'pressuredesk_source_health' which may have similar functionality.
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?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
pressuredesk_get_dossierGet Signal DossierARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Return the latest full dossier for one PressureDesk entity id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entityId | Yes | PressureDesk entity id to retrieve, such as a scored market or tool-buyer target id. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| kind | No | Machine-readable response kind, for example source-health, agent-home, or tool-buyer-dossier. |
| status | No | Readiness, payment, or request status when present. |
| product | No | Product name when the response is a public product or route packet. |
| decision | No | BUY / WAIT / AVOID decision packet when the tool evaluates a paid target. |
| trustPacket | No | Receipt, freshness, source, and safety-boundary information for agent spend decisions. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds minor context about returning the 'latest full dossier' but does not significantly expand beyond annotations.
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?
A single, concise sentence that communicates the core purpose without any unnecessary 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 has one parameter and an output schema (not shown), so the description need not explain return values. It adequately covers the tool's purpose and scope.
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?
Schema has 100% coverage for its single parameter. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's description. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 action (return) and resource (latest full dossier) and specifies it is for one PressureDesk entity id. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pressuredesk_freshness or pressuredesk_source_health.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or provide context for selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
pressuredesk_live_payment_statusPressureDesk Live Payment StatusARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Read the x402 and premium-entitlement readiness status without exposing secrets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| kind | No | Machine-readable response kind, for example source-health, agent-home, or tool-buyer-dossier. |
| status | No | Readiness, payment, or request status when present. |
| product | No | Product name when the response is a public product or route packet. |
| decision | No | BUY / WAIT / AVOID decision packet when the tool evaluates a paid target. |
| trustPacket | No | Receipt, freshness, source, and safety-boundary information for agent spend decisions. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by noting that it reads status 'without exposing secrets', which is a behavioral trait not fully captured by the annotations. No contradictions.
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 sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Read'. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy or fluff.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters, is read-only, and has an output schema, the description sufficiently covers its purpose and key behavioral aspect (not exposing secrets). The output schema handles the return values, so no further details are needed.
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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
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 'Read the x402 and premium-entitlement readiness status', specifying the verb ('read') and the specific resource (x402 and premium-entitlement readiness). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pressuredesk_founding_access or pressuredesk_freshness, which focus on different aspects.
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 implies safe reading 'without exposing secrets', giving context that it is suitable for status checks. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
pressuredesk_metaPressureDesk MetadataARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Return PressureDesk product metadata, routes, pricing, and latest snapshot id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| kind | No | Machine-readable response kind, for example source-health, agent-home, or tool-buyer-dossier. |
| status | No | Readiness, payment, or request status when present. |
| product | No | Product name when the response is a public product or route packet. |
| decision | No | BUY / WAIT / AVOID decision packet when the tool evaluates a paid target. |
| trustPacket | No | Receipt, freshness, source, and safety-boundary information for agent spend decisions. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the exact data returned (metadata, routes, pricing, snapshot id), providing context beyond the annotations.
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 sentence that directly states the tool's output. It is front-loaded and contains no superfluous information, earning its place efficiently.
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?
Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It lists the key categories of data returned, which is sufficient for understanding the tool's purpose. However, it could be slightly more specific about what 'metadata' encompasses.
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, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info because none is needed. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description is appropriately concise.
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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and clearly lists the resources: product metadata, routes, pricing, and latest snapshot id. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pressuredesk_evaluate_tool or pressuredesk_get_dossier by being a general metadata retrieval tool.
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 state when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the name and content imply it is for obtaining general metadata. There is no guidance on exclusions or specific contexts, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
pressuredesk_preview_latestPreview Latest SnapshotARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Return a redacted preview of the latest PressureDesk snapshot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| kind | No | Machine-readable response kind, for example source-health, agent-home, or tool-buyer-dossier. |
| status | No | Readiness, payment, or request status when present. |
| product | No | Product name when the response is a public product or route packet. |
| decision | No | BUY / WAIT / AVOID decision packet when the tool evaluates a paid target. |
| trustPacket | No | Receipt, freshness, source, and safety-boundary information for agent spend decisions. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is clear. The description adds that the preview is 'redacted', implying partial data, and 'latest' indicating recency. No contradiction. It provides adequate context beyond annotations for understanding expected behavior.
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 sentence with 10 words, which is appropriately concise for a zero-parameter tool. It front-loades the core purpose. However, it could be slightly expanded to clarify 'redacted' or what the preview contains, but overall it is succinct.
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?
Given zero parameters, full annotation coverage, and an existing output schema, the description is minimal but sufficient. However, it lacks details about what 'redacted' means and what fields the preview includes. For a simple tool, it meets minimum viability but could be more informative.
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 tool has no parameters, and the input schema is fully covered (100% coverage). The description correctly implies no configuration is needed. Since there are zero parameters, there is no need for additional parameter explanation.
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 uses a specific verb 'return' and resource 'preview of the latest PressureDesk snapshot'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like pressuredesk_get_dossier which retrieves a full dossier, and pressuredesk_freshness which checks freshness. No ambiguity.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or contrast with any sibling tool. Without this, an AI agent might select it inappropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
pressuredesk_source_healthPressureDesk Source HealthARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Return source provenance, source mode, freshness, trust reasons, and adapter errors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| kind | No | Machine-readable response kind, for example source-health, agent-home, or tool-buyer-dossier. |
| status | No | Readiness, payment, or request status when present. |
| product | No | Product name when the response is a public product or route packet. |
| decision | No | BUY / WAIT / AVOID decision packet when the tool evaluates a paid target. |
| trustPacket | No | Receipt, freshness, source, and safety-boundary information for agent spend decisions. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds clarity on what data is returned, going beyond annotations without contradiction.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and lists specific outputs. No redundant words; every part contributes necessary information.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to understand what the tool returns. It covers the main aspects without missing critical context.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 as per instructions. The description does not need to add parameter info since none exist, and it provides value by listing output fields.
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 returns specific health-related data: source provenance, mode, freshness, trust reasons, and adapter errors. It uses a specific verb 'Return' and distinguishes from sibling 'pressuredesk_freshness' by covering a broader set of fields.
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 implies usage for retrieving source health information, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like 'pressuredesk_freshness' or provide exclusions. No guidance on prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!