get_sample_resultReturn a stable synthetic example of Xcatcher's paginated result and coverage metadata. No live X data is fetched, no account is needed, no task or quote is created, and no funds move.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 adds meaningful context beyond annotations by explicitly stating no live X data is fetched, no account is needed, no task/quote is created, and no funds move. This clarifies the idempotent and read-only nature beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations.
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 two sentences: the first states the core function, the second enumerates clarifying negatives. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.
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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, its safety profile, and its non-live nature, which fully addresses the context needed to invoke it.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and the input schema has 100% coverage (empty schema). Description does not need to explain parameters; baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 states the tool returns a stable synthetic example of Xcatcher's paginated result and coverage metadata. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings that fetch live data or create tasks.
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 description provides clear context that this tool is for inspecting a free sample without live data, no account, and no side effects. It implies when to use it for safe testing, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.
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.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with explicit guidance for when to use accountless vs API-key variants. Even closely related tools like get_task_status and wait_for_task are differentiated by their polling behavior, so an agent can reliably select the correct one.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (create_crawl_task, get_task_status, list_crawl_tasks). The one exception is x402_topup, which places the protocol prefix before the verb, breaking the pattern slightly but still remaining readable.
With 17 tools, the count is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but the service supports two distinct payment paths (API-key and accountless x402), each requiring a parallel set of status/result tools. The count feels justified by the scope, with no obvious bloat.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of creating, monitoring, retrieving, and managing crawl tasks, including both payment flows. It includes task creation, status polling, result preview/download, cancellation, listing, balance checks, and payment top-ups, leaving no critical gaps for the stated purpose.