Read nowyourlink's API usage, authentication and pricing documentation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
The annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as rate limits or side effects, but it is consistent with 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?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words or complexity. It is well-structured and easy to understand.
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 is adequate for the tool's purpose, but it lacks any mention of return format or additional context about the documentation. Since the tool is straightforward and the sibling tools are unrelated, this is sufficient.
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 single parameter 'path' has an enum of possible values, but no description is provided. The description does not explain the parameter or its purpose beyond the enum values, which are self-explanatory but lack explicit guidance.
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 reads nowyourlink's API usage, authentication, and pricing documentation. It specifies the resource and the action, and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools that deal with spotlights.
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 explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (get_current_spotlight, get_spotlight, list_spotlights). It is implied that the tool is for documentation, but no direct guidance or contrast is provided.
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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: retrieving the current spotlight, retrieving a spotlight by date, listing all spotlights, and reading documentation. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names consistently follow the verb_noun pattern (get_current_spotlight, get_spotlight, list_spotlights, read_agent_docs). Naming style is uniform and predictable.
Four tools is appropriately scoped for a read-only spotlight browsing server. Each tool covers a necessary operation without unnecessary bloat or missing essentials.
The toolset covers the core lifecycle of reading public spotlights: current, by date, and a browsable list, plus documentation. A search or filter capability could be a minor enhancement, but there are no critical gaps for the stated purpose.