PressureDesk
Server Details
Read-only BUY / WAIT / AVOID spend gate for paid APIs, MCP endpoints, and x402 routes.
- 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: home for storefront, evaluate for spend-gate, founding for access requests, freshness for snapshot state, get_dossier for entity details, live_payment_status for payment readiness, meta for metadata, preview_latest for preview, source_health for source provenance. No two tools perform overlapping functions.
All tools share the consistent prefix 'pressuredesk_', but the naming patterns vary: some use verbs (get_dossier), others nouns (freshness, meta), or phrases (live_payment_status, preview_latest). This is mostly readable but lacks a strict verb_noun convention, causing minor inconsistency.
With 9 tools covering storefront, evaluation, access, snapshot freshness, dossier, payment, metadata, preview, and source health, the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose. Each tool earns its place without excess or deficiency.
The tool set covers core operations: evaluating a target, retrieving dossiers, checking payment status, and monitoring freshness. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool for initiating a purchase or managing entities, but the read-only nature suggests intentional design; agents can work around these gaps.
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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false. Description adds 'public-safe' and 'one-call', confirming safety and idempotency, but doesn't add significant new behavioral context 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?
One succinct sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded key information: verb, resource, constraints.
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 tool with an output schema, description adequately captures purpose and behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to understand when to invoke.
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; baseline 4 per instructions. Schema description coverage is 100% (empty properties), so no additional semantic burden.
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 public-safe one-call AutonomyForge product storefront and next action', specifying verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though context suggests it's the entry point.
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 vs alternatives. No when-not conditions or references to sibling tools for specific contexts.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds the 'read-only' qualifier and explains the output is a verdict packet (BUY/WAIT/AVOID), which provides useful context beyond 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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and output without any extraneous information. Every word is necessary.
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 annotations cover safety, the schema covers parameters, and an output schema exists, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand when and how to use the tool. The purpose and output are clearly stated.
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 coverage is 100% with all three parameters described. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.
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 a read-only BUY / WAIT / AVOID spend-gate packet'), the context ('before an agent pays'), and the target ('API, MCP endpoint, or tool'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools, which cover other pressuredesk features.
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'), but does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. The context implies it should be used for evaluating any paid tool, but no exclusions are given.
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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces the read-only nature and adds context about 'manual' and 'disallowed secrets,' which imply security considerations. This adds value 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action and specifies the exact contents of the returned packet. No redundant or excessive text.
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 presence of an output schema (which presumably defines the return format), the description complements it by listing the key components (required fields, disallowed secrets, buyer proof links). All necessary context is provided.
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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema carries no burden. The description explains what the tool returns without needing parameter details, fulfilling the requirement.
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 specific resource: a 'read-only manual founding-access request packet' including required fields, disallowed secrets, and buyer proof links. The verb 'Return' and resource description are precise and unambiguous.
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 its siblings (e.g., pressuredesk_get_dossier, pressuredesk_preview_latest). The description does not specify the intended use case or conditions under which an AI agent should invoke it.
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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the description adds no additional behavioral context. It aligns with the annotations but does not elaborate on what 'freshness state' 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 of four words, effectively communicating the tool's purpose without wasted text.
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 no parameters and an output schema (presumably documenting return values), the description sufficiently conveys the core function, though it could clarify what 'freshness' means in the domain.
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, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per the baseline rule for zero parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate; no additional meaning from description 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 states the verb 'Return' and resource 'latest snapshot freshness state', clearly indicating the tool's function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'pressuredesk_source_health' which might also provide state information.
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, such as when to check freshness versus other status tools. There are no explicit conditions or exclusions 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 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 declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld. Description adds 'latest full' but no additional behavioral details like caching or rate limits.
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, front-loaded with essential info, 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?
Tool is simple retrieval with output schema and annotations covering safety. Description is adequate but doesn't explain dossier contents or freshness expectations.
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 covers 100% of parameters. Description provides examples of valid entity IDs (scored market or tool-buyer target), adding value beyond 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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Return', the resource 'dossier', and the scope 'latest full for one entity id', distinguishing it from siblings like the preview 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., pressurd_desk_preview_latest). Missing usage context.
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 indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and no destructiveness. The description adds value by specifying it reads 'x402 and premium-entitlement readiness status' and highlights the security aspect of not exposing secrets. No contradiction with 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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It clearly conveys the action and scope without verbosity.
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, rich annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and behavior. It could be slightly improved by hinting at the return format, but the 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?
There are zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable as there are none to describe. The mention of specific statuses provides context.
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 reads 'x402 and premium-entitlement readiness status' with the verb 'Read', indicating a read operation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like pressuredesk_source_health or pressuredesk_get_dossier, which could have overlapping purposes.
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 includes 'without exposing secrets' as a constraint, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context about prerequisites or scenarios is provided.
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 include readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds context about specific output items (routes, pricing, snapshot id), which is helpful 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?
Single sentence that is complete and efficient, no extraneous text.
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?
With no parameters, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema, the description is sufficient to understand the tool's purpose and return value.
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 input schema, so baseline is 4. Description does not need to add parameter info.
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 explicitly states it returns 'PressureDesk product metadata, routes, pricing, and latest snapshot id,' clearly differentiating it from sibling tools that handle agent home, evaluation, payment status, etc.
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, but the description implicitly suggests it for general metadata retrieval. Lacks exclusion criteria.
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?
The term 'redacted' adds behavioral context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) by indicating the preview is not full data. No contradictions with 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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key information. 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?
For a no-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns (preview) and which snapshot (latest).
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?
With no parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description need not add parameter info. It adequately describes the output nature.
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 resource 'redacted preview of the latest PressureDesk snapshot'. It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 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 to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context on when it is appropriate to invoke.
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 indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by detailing the specific result fields, going beyond what annotations provide. 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?
Single sentence precisely states what the tool does with no extraneous words. 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?
For a zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description fully captures the tool's purpose and output. No missing information.
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 exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate. Baseline 4 for 0 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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and lists the exact information (source provenance, mode, freshness, trust reasons, adapter errors), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'pressuredesk_freshness' which likely returns only 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'pressuredesk_freshness' or 'pressuredesk_preview_latest'. The description does not provide context for appropriate usage scenarios.
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!