Composed tool chaining gtm-strategy → email-polish → crypto-payments-2026 (pay-per-call, x402). [x402: 0.01 USDC on Base, pay-per-use]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | pipeline input |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that the tool is pay-per-call via x402, costing 0.01 USDC on Base. However, it does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, failure modes, or whether the underlying tools mutate data.
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 one compact sentence plus a pricing note, with no filler. The core composition information is front-loaded, and the critical pay-per-use cost is included without bloating the text.
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?
Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description leaves important gaps: it does not specify what the pipeline returns, what the input should contain, or when this combo should be selected over its component tools. The cost and chain are helpful but insufficient for confident invocation.
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 input schema already describes the single parameter as 'pipeline input' with 100% coverage. The description adds no further meaning about what format or content the pipeline input should take, so it does not improve on the schema.
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 states a specific process—'chaining gtm-strategy → email-polish → crypto-payments-2026'—and clearly identifies the tool as a composed pipeline rather than a single operation. It distinguishes itself from individual sibling tools by naming its three components, though it does not describe the final deliverable.
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 about when to use this composed tool versus running the individual sibling tools (gtm-strategy, email-polish, crypto-payments-2026) separately. The description implies a pipeline use case but does not state exclusions or alternatives.
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.
The set contains many trivially indistinct tools: ai-inference/inference, compress/comprimir, count-tokens/contar-tokens, detect-language/language-detect, and multiple overlapping OCR receipt variants. With 160 tools and pairs that differ only by language or suffix, an agent cannot reliably distinguish several capabilities.
Most names are readable lower-hyphen identifiers, but they mix action verbs, noun phrases, domain prefixes, pipeline suffixes, Spanish/English, and arbitrary demo/batch labels. There is a loose convention, but no consistent verb_noun pattern.
160 tools on one server is an extreme count and clearly unwieldy. Even as a marketplace, exposing every variant, demo, and composed bundle as a top-level MCP tool overwhelms agent selection and adds little distinct capability.
The set covers a huge range of text, image, audio, code, market, compliance, and content-workflow tasks, so many intents have some available tool. However, it is a grab-bag rather than a defined service surface, and the arbitrary demo/specialized variants make it unclear whether a needed operation truly exists or is just a duplicate.