How long a provider takes to acknowledge an incident: the interval between an incident starting and its first public update. Requires a key; see https://sighttrue.com/pricing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| provider | No |
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?
The description discloses the authentication requirement ('Requires a key') and the metric definition, but it does not explain the return format, whether a single value or a list is returned, or how the optional 'provider' parameter affects behavior. Without annotations, this leaves a significant transparency gap.
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, focused sentence that front-loads the core definition and adds the key requirement. There is no filler or repetition, making it highly efficient.
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?
With one optional parameter and no output schema, the description should provide enough context for correct invocation. It fails to explain the 'provider' parameter's role or expected input format, and the return value is unspecified. The simplicity of the tool is not an excuse for this level of incompleteness.
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 0%, and the description only implicitly references 'provider' as the subject of the metric. It does not explicitly state that the 'provider' parameter filters by provider name, nor does it provide any format or example. This undercompensates for the schema's lack of detail.
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 clearly defines what the tool measures: the time between an incident starting and its first public update. This is a specific, unambiguous purpose that distinguishes it from sibling tools like provider_incidents, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'gets'.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as provider_incidents or provider_terms_changed. The only usage condition mentioned is 'Requires a key,' which is a prerequisite, not a contextual recommendation.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct query type: package status, stack review, provider incidents, model pricing, watchlist changes, etc. Even similar-sounding tools like check_package and check_stack are clearly differentiated by granularity (single package vs. whole manifest). The descriptions further remove ambiguity.
All names use lowercase snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: some are imperative verb_noun (check_package, find_model, watch_add) while many are noun phrases (advisory_severity, provider_incidents, runtime_deadlines). This is readable but not a consistent verb_noun style, so there is noticeable inconsistency.
At 31 tools, the count exceeds the 'too many' threshold (25+). While the domain is broad, the agent must navigate a large surface with many similarly scoped utilities, making selection harder. A more consolidated set (e.g., grouping related readings) would improve appropriateness.
The tool surface covers a wide range of supply-chain intelligence: package advisories, provider status, model pricing, runtime EOL, and watchlist changes. The only notable gap is lifecycle management for the private watchlist (e.g., no watch_remove or watch_list), but the overall coverage is strong.