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 3.6/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored.
Each tool addresses a unique aspect of the PressureDesk service: storefront, spend evaluation, access request, freshness, dossier, payment status, metadata, preview, and source health. No two tools have overlapping purposes.
All tools use the consistent pattern 'pressuredesk_' followed by a descriptive snake_case noun phrase (e.g., pressuredesk_get_dossier, pressuredesk_source_health). No deviations.
9 tools is well-scoped for a product evaluation and data access server. It covers necessary functions without being bloated or too sparse.
The surface covers the main read-only operations and evaluation logic needed for an agent to interact with PressureDesk. Minor gap: no direct tool to initiate payment or write actions, but that may be intentional for a read-first workflow.
Available Tools
9 toolspressuredesk_agent_homeAutonomyForge Agent HomeBRead-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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states the tool returns data, but does not disclose whether it has side effects, requires authentication, or any other behavioral traits. For a get-like tool, this is minimal disclosure.
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 14 words, front-loading the action and resource. No extraneous information; every word earns its place.
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 no output schema, the description is adequate for understanding the basic purpose. However, it lacks details on the output structure, the meaning of 'next action', and any context for when to invoke it. It is minimally viable but could be improved.
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 has no parameters, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline of 3 is raised because the tool requires no inputs, making parameter semantics irrelevant.
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 'Return the public-safe one-call AutonomyForge product storefront and next action' clearly states the action (return) and the resource (product storefront and next action). It distinguishes from sibling tools, none of which appear to be a 'home' or storefront function. However, jargon like 'public-safe one-call' slightly reduces clarity.
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, nor any exclusions or context. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'read-only', indicating no side effects. However, it does not explain the criteria for BUY/WAIT/AVOID ratings or the packet structure. The behavioral transparency is adequate but lacks depth.
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, well-formed sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. It is front-loaded with key information. While it could benefit from structured details, it avoids unnecessary verbiage and earns its space.
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 three parameters (one required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not define the meaning of 'task' or 'priceUsd', nor does it describe the return packet. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly without additional 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 description provides some context for the 'target' parameter (API, MCP endpoint, or tool) but does not explain 'task' or 'priceUsd'. With 0% schema description coverage and no detailed parameter descriptions, the agent lacks essential information to correctly populate all parameters.
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's action: returning a read-only BUY/WAIT/AVOID spend-gate packet. It specifies the context (before paying for a target API, MCP endpoint, or tool) and implies the decision-making role. Among sibling tools, none appear to overlap in functionality, so it is well-distinguished.
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 states when to use the tool: 'before an agent pays'. This provides clear context. However, it does not list alternative tools or conditions when not to use it, which would further enhance guidance. Despite this, the primary usage scenario is well-conveyed.
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?
The description explicitly labels the tool as 'read-only', disclosing its non-mutating behavior. Without annotations, this is sufficient for a simple retrieval tool, though it omits details about error handling or result 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?
The description is a single sentence of 18 words, front-loaded with the action verb, with no superfluous information. Every word earns its place.
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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and return items. However, it could be more explicit about the data format or structure, leaving minor 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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description rightly adds no parameter details. According to guidelines, a baseline of 4 applies when no parameters exist.
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 verb 'Return' and specifies the exact resource: 'manual founding-access request packet', including its components. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'pressuredesk_evaluate_tool' or 'pressuredesk_get_dossier'.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context for appropriate usage.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states a read operation ('Return') without detailing any behavioral traits such as caching, error conditions, or what 'freshness' entails.
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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.
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?
Despite no parameters or output schema, the description lacks details about the return format or usage scenarios. For a simple tool, more context (e.g., what the state looks like) would be helpful.
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 description need not add param info. Baseline is 4 as per guidelines for no parameters.
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 'Return latest snapshot freshness state' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating what the tool does. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'pressuredesk_source_health' and 'pressuredesk_preview_latest' by focusing on freshness.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The context of 'freshness' implies it is for checking the latest state, but no when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.
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 DossierBRead-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?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Return' without indicating whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or what happens if the entity is not found. The name and description imply a safe read, but explicit safety guarantees are absent.
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, clearly stating the action and object without superfluous words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately conveys the core purpose. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral details, making it minimally viable but with notable gaps.
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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It names 'entityId' as the identifier for one PressureDesk entity, but does not provide additional context such as format, source, or examples, failing to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
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 the latest full dossier for a specific PressureDesk entity id, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'pressuredesk_preview_latest' which likely returns a preview, and 'pressuredesk_source_health' which is about health checks.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for a single entity, but does not explicitly state when to choose this over 'pressuredesk_preview_latest' or other siblings, nor any exclusions.
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?
No annotations. Description states 'without exposing secrets' hinting at security but lacks details on side effects, rate limits, or return format. 'Read' implies non-destructive.
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, no fluff. Every word earns its place.
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?
Adequate for a zero-param tool, but lacks output schema and usage context. Could mention what the status looks like or typical use cases.
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?
Zero parameters, so baseline 4. Description doesn't need to add param info; it focuses on what is read.
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?
Clear verb 'Read' and specific resources 'x402 and premium-entitlement readiness status'. Distinguishes from siblings like 'pressuredesk_meta' 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 explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives. Siblings listed but no contextual hints. Implies checking readiness, but no exclusions.
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?
No annotations provided. Description only lists return values without disclosing side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or performance characteristics. For a read-only metadata tool, minimal disclosure is acceptable but still incomplete.
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 of 12 words efficiently states purpose. Front-loaded with action verb. No wasted words or 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?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately lists the types of data returned (metadata, routes, pricing, snapshot id). Adequate for a simple metadata endpoint, though could mention return format (e.g., JSON).
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?
Input schema has zero parameters, so description coverage is 100%. Description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as there is no information missing.
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 the tool returns product metadata, routes, pricing, and latest snapshot id. Verb 'Return' and resource 'PressureDesk product metadata' are specific. Sibling tool names suggest this is distinct from agent home, evaluation, and other tools.
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. Doesn't specify prerequisites or context such as needing to call this before other tools.
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 SnapshotBRead-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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'redacted preview' but does not explain what redaction entails, what data is returned, or any side effects. It lacks details on read-only behavior, frequency of latest snapshot, or any limitations.
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 with 9 words, front-loaded with the action and result. Every word earns its place with no 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?
Despite zero parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'redacted preview' means, what 'latest snapshot' refers to, or any restrictions. No output schema is provided, so description should clarify return format or nature of preview.
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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information. According to guidelines, baseline 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 the tool returns a redacted preview of the latest PressureDesk snapshot, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which have different functions like 'pressuredesk_agent_home' or 'pressuredesk_get_dossier'.
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 or when not to use this tool compared to alternatives. The description only states what it does, without mentioning 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_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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It lists the returned attributes but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description is adequate but minimal.
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 concisely states what the tool does, with no unnecessary words or repetition.
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?
Without output schema, the description should explain return values. It lists several fields but does not describe their types or structure. However, for a zero-parameter health check, it is fairly complete.
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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information since 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 specifies exactly what the tool returns: source provenance, source mode, freshness, trust reasons, and adapter errors. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like pressuredesk_freshness which likely only returns freshness.
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 provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no context on prerequisites or typical use cases.
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!