Operator-level Datacenter Buildout Activity Index — index headline, state counts, and per-operator assessable/active tallies from the latest sealed issue, with a content-sha256 attestation. Returns an Ed25519-signed receipt.
| 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 burden, and it adds meaningful behavioral details: it returns a content-sha256 attestation and an Ed25519-signed receipt, implying a read-only, integrity-protected response. It does not explicitly mention auth, side effects, or failure modes, but the zero-parameter read-shaped operation makes those less critical.
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 dense passage with no filler; each listed output element earns its place. It is slightly awkward with 'Index — index headline' repeating the word 'index,' but it remains compact and front-loaded with the resource name.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description does a good job enumerating the return values: index headline, state counts, per-operator tallies, attestation, and signed receipt. It leaves domain-specific terms ('sealed issue', 'assessable/active') undefined, but a zero-input tool at this complexity is adequately specified.
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 is empty, so there are no parameters to explain; the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description appropriately focuses on the output rather than inputs.
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 starts with a specific resource ('Operator-level Datacenter Buildout Activity Index') and lists its exact contents: headline, state counts, per-operator assessable/active tallies from the latest sealed issue, plus attestation and a signed receipt. The 'Returns an Ed25519-signed receipt' sentence makes the action and output clear. The 'operator-level' scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like datacenter_site_changes.
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 intended use is implied by the resource name and contents: call this when you need an operator-level breakdown of datacenter buildout activity from the latest sealed issue. However, the description never names alternatives or states when not to use it, so the agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.
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.
Several tool pairs overlap heavily: permit_lookup, search_permits, and jurisdiction_index all address permit discovery, while web_policy_history and enclosure_evidence_pack both track the same robots.txt/ai.txt/llms.txt/TDM-Rep policy surface. Agents would need to read very long descriptions carefully to avoid selecting the wrong tool.
All names are snake_case but the pattern is mixed: most are noun phrases like agent_census_stats and web_policy_history, while request_quote, search_permits, and verify_contractor_license use verb-first naming. The names are readable but do not follow one consistent convention.
Fifteen tools is at the high end of a reasonable scope, and the set spans permits, datacenter indices, agent attestations, web policy history, and quote requests. The count is not absurd, but it feels like several different products bundled into one server.
The permit lookup/search/rebate/contractor side is reasonably covered for read-only queries, and there is useful verification and attestation tooling. However, the 'Agent Market' side has no way to browse or complete a purchase beyond one request_quote action, and some data products like datacenter and agentic commerce feel disconnected from the core permits domain.