Skip to main content
Glama

Support Intake Digest

Server Details

Digest a support intake marker

Status
Unhealthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL

Glama MCP Gateway

Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.

MCP client
Glama
MCP server

Full call logging

Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.

Tool access control

Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.

Managed credentials

Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.

Usage analytics

See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.

100% free. Your data is private.
Tool DescriptionsA

Average 4/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion between tools, so disambiguation is perfect.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool name, summarize_snippet_marker, follows a clear verb_noun pattern and is descriptive.

Tool Count5/5

The server has a single, narrow purpose; one tool is exactly appropriate for extracting the follow-up marker.

Completeness5/5

The tool fully covers the server's stated purpose—extracting the marker from snippets—with no obvious missing operations.

Available Tools

1 tool
summarize_snippet_markerSupport Intake DigestAInspect

Extracts the follow-up marker from support intake snippets so escalation teams can connect the right customer context to a ticket.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
snippetYesSupport intake snippet, escalation note, or customer follow-up excerpt.
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the tool performs an extraction (read-only), but does not mention any side effects, permissions, or error handling. The description is adequate for a simple extraction tool, but lacks behavioral depth beyond the stated action.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and purpose. Every word is meaningful, and there is no redundant information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description explains what it does and why, which is sufficient. However, it does not describe the output format or any edge cases (e.g., if no marker is found), leaving minor gaps.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The description mentions 'support intake snippets' which aligns with the single parameter 'snippet' described in the input schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds little beyond the schema's own description. No additional format or constraints are provided.

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?

The description clearly states the tool extracts a specific marker from support intake snippets, with the explicit purpose of connecting customer context to tickets. The verb 'extracts' and the resource 'support intake snippets' are specific and unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly indicates the tool is for extracting follow-up markers from support intake snippets, escalation notes, or excerpts. It implicitly suggests usage in escalation contexts. However, it does not explicitly exclude any scenarios or mention alternatives, which is acceptable given no sibling tools.

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

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Try in Browser

Your Connectors

Sign in to create a connector for this server.

Resources