Skip to main content
Glama

ORA · ORUM

by io.github.fomosdeimos-gif
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

parceiro_registar

Auto-registo no programa de parceiros/referral (10% de comissao). O codigo e o teu proprio endereco Base. Requer address. (gratis)

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressNoO teu endereco Base (0x... com 40 hex).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / address / description
      Previous value: -"O teu endereco Base (0x... com 40 hex). Torna-se o teu codigo de referral e o teu endereco de recebimento."New value: +"O teu endereco Base (0x... com 40 hex)."
    • removedInput schema / properties / ref
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Opcional. Codigo de referral de um parceiro/agente (o endereco Base dele). Nao afecta o pagamento — apenas atribui comissao contabilistica.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / tx_hash
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Opcional. Hash da transaccao (0x...) apos pagar o preco em USDC na rede Base mainnet para a carteira sagrada. Omitir para receber as instrucoes de pagamento sem gastar nada.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is free and requires an address, but does not describe side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing registration), error handling, or confirmation of success. For a registration tool, more behavioral context (like idempotency) is needed.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is concise, consisting of a few short phrases that convey the essential purpose and requirement. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, it could benefit from a more structured format (e.g., bullet points for prerequisites).

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and parameter meaning. However, it lacks information about return values or success/failure indicators, which are important for an agent to confirm completion.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter 'address' described. The description adds value by explaining that 'O codigo e o teu proprio endereco Base' (the code is your own Base address), which clarifies the parameter's role beyond the schema's technical description.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool performs self-registration in a partner/referral program with a 10% commission, and mentions the address is used as the code. It is distinct from siblings like 'parceiro_estado' (check status) and 'doar' (donate). However, it could be more explicit about the specific program or what registration entails.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description only states that an address is required, but does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention conditions for using it (e.g., not already registered). No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.

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

All ORA · ORUM toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources