Skip to main content
Glama

Service info

get_service_info
Read-only

Free. Price, network, and what this service returns. For a sample of the actual output rather than a description of it, call try_it_free instead.

When to use: You want this service's prices, network and endpoints in machine-readable form. Free. Use instead: try_it_free to see real output. Returns: prices per tool, the payment network and recipient, and what each tool returns.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_service_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by stating the operation is free (cost transparency, twice) and enumerating what comes back: prices per tool, the payment network and recipient, and tool return descriptions. It stops short of noting rate limits or caching, but is solid for a read-only info call.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded and scannable with labeled sections, but it repeats itself: 'Free.' appears twice, the first sentence's summary is restated in 'When to use' and again in 'Returns', and the try_it_free routing appears in both the opening and the 'Use instead' line. Roughly a third of the text is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of describing the payload, and it does: prices per tool, payment network and recipient, and what each tool returns. An agent knows the shape of the result and when to prefer the sibling.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the tool is self-scoped to 'this service' with no arguments, which aligns with the empty schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource and its contents: 'Price, network, and what this service returns', plus 'prices, network and endpoints in machine-readable form'. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling try_it_free, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit 'When to use' and 'Use instead' lines, naming try_it_free and the condition that selects it (wanting real sample output rather than a description). Nothing is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.