Add a source: an adapter with a config, fetched on a schedule (needs a key; admins and Pro). Call list_adapters first for the fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Display name | |
| config | No | Adapter config fields | |
| adapter | Yes | Adapter name, e.g. github-releases | |
| collection | No | Collection slug; defaults to the adapter's | |
| cadence_minutes | No | 5 to 1440 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior itself, and it does: the source is fetched on a schedule, requires a key, and is restricted to admins and Pro users. It also implies creation is the side effect. It could mention expected response or mutation details more explicitly, but the key safety and access behaviors are covered.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds prerequisite and access context in a single efficient sentence plus a short follow-up. Every clause earns its place, with no filler 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?
The description covers the essential operational context: what a source is, the dependency on list_adapters, scheduling behavior, and access restrictions. There is no output schema and no mention of return values, but for a creation tool the key invocation guidance is present. A brief note on the response would make it fully 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds useful cross-tool semantics by explaining that config fields come from list_adapters and that the source is scheduled, which helps the agent understand how adapter, config, and cadence_minutes relate. This goes beyond baseline schema coverage.
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: 'Add a source' and specifies what a source is: 'an adapter with a config, fetched on a schedule'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_feed and list_sources by identifying the resource (source) and its core behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context and a prerequisite: 'Call list_adapters first for the fields.' It also states access requirements ('needs a key; admins and Pro'). It does not explicitly describe when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The tools are mostly distinct: list_* tools cover different metadata resources, and item queries are separated into recent_items, search_items, upcoming, and feed_items. Some overlap exists among the item-retrieval tools, but descriptions clarify their different filters and use cases.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern such as add_source, create_feed, list_* and search_items. A few exceptions like feed_items, stats, and upcoming break the pattern, but the overall naming is still predictable and readable.
Fifteen tools is well within the expected range and each tool maps to a distinct part of the domain: adapters, sources, collections, enrichers, feeds, items, and stats. The count feels appropriate for the breadth of NicheDB without obvious bloat.
The read and query surface is strong, covering items, feeds, sources, collections, and enrichers. However, lifecycle management is incomplete: sources and feeds can be created but not updated or deleted, and feeds can be followed but not unfollowed, which leaves notable admin workflow gaps.