Skip to main content
Glama

Storyflo

by io.github.Alisammour

Quote a partnership tier

quote_partnership
Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the indicative partnership tier (starter / growth / scale / enterprise) + monthly fee + storyflo revenue-share bps for a partner integrating storyflo into their agent product. Pure pricing-matrix lookup; no contract is created. The agent should hand the returned contact_url to the human to open a formal partnership thread. Public — no auth required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
verticalYesVertical scope the partner plans to cover.
monthly_impressionsYesExpected monthly impressions across the partner's surface.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds valuable context: it is a 'pure pricing-matrix lookup' with no contract creation, and it mentions the returned contact_url as an action item for the human. 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value: outcomes, side-effect disclaimer, and human handoff. No redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With only 2 well-documented parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description fully covers the tool's behavior, return contents, side effects, and auth. It is complete for a simple lookup tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, earning the baseline score of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Return' with the resource 'indicative partnership tier' and details the exact outputs (tier, monthly fee, revenue-share bps). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which relate to partnership quoting.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly states when to use the tool (to get an indicative tier) and provides exclusions: 'no contract is created' and instructs the agent to hand the contact_url to a human. It also clarifies auth requirements ('Public — no auth required').

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Storyflo toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with detailed descriptions that prevent ambiguity. Even similar tools like search_articles, search_declassified, and search_unified target different corpora, and the publisher tools are well-separated. No overlap that would confuse an agent.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case, using clear prefixes like get_, search_, subscribe_, publisher_, fm_, digest_, etc. The naming is predictable and systematic, making it easy for an agent to infer functionality.

Tool Count4/5

At 37 tools, the count is higher than the typical 3-15 range for a coherent set, but the server covers a wide domain (content retrieval, podcast management, fund manager book, embedder network, etc.). Each tool earns its place, though the set could be slightly reduced by merging some rare-use tools.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is comprehensive for the server's purpose—search, audio, subscriptions, publisher workflows, and special features like the Divergence Index. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit unsubscribe tool, no article update/delete), but they are not critical for core workflows.

Resources