Every market on the record: slug, name, identity (domain or license), receipt fields, business count and edition. Facts about coverage, not a comparison between markets.
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does this well by stating the tool lists every market and the specific output fields, and by clarifying the output is factual coverage data. It does not mention ordering or pagination, but for a zero-parameter read-only listing tool this is acceptable.
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 two dense sentences with no wasted words. The core scope ('Every market on the record') is front-loaded, the field list is compact, and the clarifying boundary is appended efficiently.
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 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what is returned and in what spirit. It names the key data fields and explicitly rules out comparison behavior, making the tool's behavior predictable.
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 input schema has zero properties and 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. Under the baseline rule for zero-parameter tools, this is appropriately handled; the description's field list adds value for understanding output instead.
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 identifies the tool as returning every market and enumerates the included fields (slug, name, identity, receipt fields, business count, edition). This distinguishes it from the sibling tools like find_business and get_receipt, and the closing clause 'not a comparison between markets' further sharpens its purpose.
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 explicit context that this tool provides coverage facts rather than a comparison between markets, which helps an agent decide whether to use it. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say 'use this when...', so it falls short of full routing guidance.
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 maps to a distinct action: finding a business by fuzzy criteria, pulling a specific receipt by exact identifier, and listing index or market metadata. There is no realistic overlap that would cause an agent to select the wrong tool.
All four tool names follow a consistent lowercase verb_noun pattern: find_business, get_receipt, list_index, list_markets. The verbs are semantically appropriate and the pattern is uniform.
Four tools is well-scoped for a narrow read-only lookup service covering discovery, receipt retrieval, and coverage metadata. Each tool has a clear role and none feel redundant or missing at this level.
The tool surface covers the main workflows: finding businesses, retrieving receipts, and understanding market/index coverage. Since this is a read-only verification service, write operations are not an obvious gap and there are no dead ends.