NGDC service catalog and non-binding monthly content fee estimates.
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one calculates a content fee, while the other lists services and routes. There is no meaningful overlap in intent or expected inputs.
Both names use a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: estimate_content_fee and list_services. The convention is predictable and readable.
Two tools is thin for a server labeled 'sales', even if the intended scope is narrow. The surface feels borderline and may leave agents without enough operations to handle common sales requests.
The server only supports a narrow fee estimate and service listing, with no quote creation, service detail retrieval, lead/contact handling, or broader sales lifecycle operations. It also explicitly excludes many fee categories, leaving significant gaps for a sales-oriented tool set.
Calculate a non-binding monthly NGDC content fee; no advertising, hosting, domains, licenses or taxes
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| packageId | Yes | ||
| discountPercent | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important trait: the fee is non-binding and excludes advertising, hosting, domains, licenses and taxes. However, it says nothing about permissions, currency, how discounts are applied, or what the response contains (and there is no output schema to lean on).
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the exclusions are packed into a compact clause. It is efficient, though the lack of any second sentence covering the required package tier leaves it thin rather than tight.
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 pricing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description omits what the estimate returns (currency, monthly cadence, tier meaning) and what the required packageId implies. It gives an agent enough to know what the tool is, but not enough to invoke it confidently without reading the schema.
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 should compensate, but it never mentions packageId (the three service tiers) or discountPercent (0–15 cap). An agent must read the schema to learn that a package tier is required and that discounts are bounded, and gets no explanation of what the tiers mean.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Calculate a non-binding monthly NGDC content fee,' which is clear enough for an agent to know it produces an estimate, and it is trivially distinguishable from the only sibling, list_services. It does not name the sibling or explain how the estimate is derived, but the purpose is unmistakable.
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?
Usage is only implied by the word 'estimate' and 'non-binding' — an agent can infer this is for quoting, not billing. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to the sibling tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List NGDC services and official routes across four sites
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a non-destructive read, but the description never confirms read-only semantics, says whether the result is exhaustive or truncated, describes ordering, or indicates what an entry looks like — all significant gaps for a zero-parameter tool with no output schema.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. However, the words it does spend ('NGDC', 'official routes', 'four sites') add little decodable meaning for an agent unfamiliar with the domain, so brevity comes partly at the cost of informativeness.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what a 'service' or 'route' record contains and roughly what comes back. It instead leaves the domain vocabulary and the return shape entirely undefined, which is not enough for an agent to predict or use the output.
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 takes no parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add and the baseline applies. The description correctly implies a full, unfiltered enumeration rather than a parameterized query.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List NGDC services and official routes') plus a scope ('across four sites'), so an agent knows this is an enumeration tool. It loses a point because 'NGDC', 'services', and 'official routes' are unexplained jargon, and the sibling ('estimate_content_fee') is unrelated enough that no differentiation is needed but none is offered either.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no stated prerequisites. The only implied usage comes from the word 'List', which an agent must interpret on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
estimate_content_feelist_servicesFree search and declared-price review of public MCP and x402 service catalogs. Experimental pilot.
Match API, CSV, freight, analytics, and content needs to fixed-price services with authority gates.
Hosted MCP catalog with 30 tenant-isolated browser, RAG, AI, mail and media tools.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.