get_service_infoRead Xcatcher's live capabilities, prices, limits, endpoints, and recommended agent workflow. Call this first when planning a crawl or when cached documentation may be stale. No points are consumed.
| 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?
Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing 'No points are consumed' (cost implication) and 'live capabilities' (freshness/dynamic data). No contradiction with annotations; the extra behavioral context beyond the structured hints is useful.
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?
Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, usage guidance, and cost note. No filler or redundancy. The description is front-loaded with the primary action and remains highly scannable.
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 simple read-only info tool with an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, when to use it, and cost behavior. It doesn't need to explain return format because the output schema exists. The guidance to call it first is a complete workflow hint.
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, so the baseline is 4. The description compensates for the empty schema by listing what the tool returns (capabilities, prices, limits, endpoints, workflow), giving semantic meaning to the output.
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 starts with 'Read Xcatcher's live capabilities, prices, limits, endpoints, and recommended agent workflow' – a clear verb (Read) and specific resource list. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools (task/payment management) by focusing on service-level info.
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?
It explicitly advises 'Call this first when planning a crawl or when cached documentation may be stale,' providing both a condition and a recommended workflow. This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool relative to other actions.
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.