INDUSTRY REPORT: Developer tools 2026 (deep, cited). input=optional scope. B2B: inversores y equipos de DevRel leen el estado del tooling. [x402: 100.0 USDC on Base, pay-per-use]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | service 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It does mention depth, citations, and a pay-per-use cost of 100 USDC on Base via x402, which is useful. However, it does not describe return format, latency, or side effects, and the 'input=optional' statement directly contradicts the schema's required field.
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 text is compact and puts the main topic first, but it mixes English and Spanish, uses telegraphic fragments, and hides pricing in a bracketed code-like string. It is not well-structured for an agent to parse quickly, though it contains no obvious filler.
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?
Given a single free-text input and no output schema, the description should explain expected output shape or provide an example; it does neither. The pricing and audience are stated, but the schema contradiction and lack of sibling routing leave the agent under-equipped to invoke it correctly.
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 schema only describes input as 'service input', so the description's 'optional scope' is the only real attempt to explain the parameter. That attempt is vague and inaccurate because the schema marks input as required. No format, language, or example is provided.
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 identifies the deliverable: a deep, cited industry report on developer tools 2026. The topic distinguishes it from the many sibling market/landscape reports such as ai-agents-market-2026 or mcp-servers-landscape. However, it is phrased as a label rather than a verb-driven action, and 'input=optional' conflicts with the required input schema.
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 gives audience context ('B2B: inversores y equipos de DevRel') and notes that input provides optional scope. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over sibling research tools like deep-research-report or market-research-report, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.
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.