Find rebate programs and eligible measures for an AZ service area.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| measure | No | Optional measure filter: 'HVAC', 'Heat Pump', 'Solar', etc. | |
| jurisdiction | Yes | AZ jurisdiction slug. Used to filter to programs serving that area. |
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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'Find' clearly implies a read-only lookup, but the description does not disclose return format, error behavior, or authorization needs. This is adequate for a simple search tool but not richly transparent.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does with no filler or repetition. Every word earns its place.
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 two-parameter lookup with fully documented schema fields, the description plus schema is sufficient for correct invocation. The lack of an output schema means return values are not formally specified, but the description's mention of 'rebate programs and eligible measures' conveys the expected result.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond naming the eligible-measures filter concept, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.
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 uses the specific verb 'Find' with the resource 'rebate programs and eligible measures' and scopes it to 'AZ service area', making the tool's purpose immediately clear. No sibling tool targets rebates, so there is no confusion among the listed tools.
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 phrase 'for an AZ service area' gives clear context for when the tool applies, and no rebate-related alternative exists among the siblings to exclude. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but for a focused lookup tool the context is sufficient.
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.