Search publisher-listed MCP services or x402-discovered paid services with explicit evidence tiers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| asset | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| scheme | No | ||
| source | No | ||
| network | No | ||
| evidence | No | ||
| curated_only | No | ||
| max_usd_price | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It only states what is searched and mentions evidence tiers, but does not disclose read-only behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, result format, or any side effects. This is a meaningful gap for a tool with no 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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and contains no unnecessary words or repetition. It is appropriately concise.
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?
The tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, creating a high complexity burden. The description only provides a high-level purpose and omits filtering mechanics, result structure, source semantics, and relationship to sibling tools, leaving the agent under-informed.
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% for 9 parameters, and the description does not explain any of them. It vaguely hints at service types and evidence tiers, but does not map those concepts to the 'source' or 'evidence' parameters, nor explain 'q', 'asset', 'limit', 'scheme', 'network', 'curated_only', or 'max_usd_price'. The minimal hint prevents a score of 1.
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 searches for 'publisher-listed MCP services or x402-discovered paid services' with 'explicit evidence tiers,' giving a specific verb and resource scope. It distinguishes from general search but does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'search_work' tool, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_work' or 'get_opportunity.' The description implies a search use case but provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
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.
Most tools are separated by lifecycle stage, and the descriptions are detailed, but resolve_blocker and request_outcome_execution both accept work the agent cannot complete, making their boundary subtle. get_blocker_resolution and get_outcome_execution are also both private status readers, so some overlap exists even though descriptions help.
The set is mostly consistent with snake_case verb_noun names like search_work, select_blocker_offer, and report_blocker_outcome. buyer_capabilities is a bare noun phrase rather than a verb_noun, and submission verbs vary between resolve and request, but overall the naming remains predictable.
Ten tools is well within the well-scoped range for a workflow server. Each tool supports the blocker lifecycle, execution status, or work/service discovery, and none feels gratuitous.
The core workflow is fully represented: resolve a blocker, discover routes, select an offer, execute, read evidence, and report outcomes. There is no explicit cancel or request-history tool, and some search/discovery tools are not tied to a follow-up action, but these are minor gaps rather than dead ends.