Create a prepaid account. Returns api_key (format: mcp_live_…). Store it immediately — shown only once. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | No | Optional unique identifier for this agent | |
| display_name | No | Human-readable name for this agent |
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, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the key is shown only once and should be stored immediately, and that it's free. This is useful behavioral context beyond the tool's basic function.
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 three short sentences with no redundant information. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose: action, key handling, and cost.
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?
Given no output schema, the description covers the return format and the one-time display warning. For a simple creation tool, this is nearly complete, though it could mention confirmation or error handling.
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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add extra meaning or usage context for the parameters, so it meets the baseline but adds no value.
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 creates a prepaid account, with specific details about the API key format and its one-time display. It is a specific verb+resource pair.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like create_wallet_setup or add_funds_* tools. No exclusion or alternative context 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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but the three add_funds tools (5, 10, 20) are redundant and could be a single parameterized tool. There is also slight overlap between get_sun_times and get_weather (both provide sunrise/sunset), which may cause confusion.
Naming conventions are mixed: some tools use verb_noun (register_agent, create_wallet_setup) while others use noun_verb (get_balance, add_funds_5). There is no consistent pattern, and the presence of numbered suffixes (add_funds_5, add_funds_10) breaks uniformity.
20 tools is slightly high but reasonable for the domain. The three add_funds tools could be consolidated into one with a parameter, which would reduce clutter without losing functionality.
The tool set covers a broad range of Hawaii conditions (weather, surf, volcano, trails, ocean safety, restaurants). Minor gaps exist (e.g., tide data, specific beach alerts), but overall it provides a solid coverage for its intended purpose.