statusCheck your GlassyPic account status: login state, tier, credits remaining, and credit reset time. Use this before batch processing to verify sufficient credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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, and the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses what data is returned but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, potential errors, or any side effects, though 'check' implies read-only.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and the second sentence gives actionable guidance. No redundant information.
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 status-check tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what is checked and when to use it. It could explain the output format or error handling, but these are minor gaps.
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?
With zero parameters, the schema is trivial and the description doesn't need to explain parameters. It adds value by describing the output contents, giving context beyond the empty 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 clearly states the tool checks account status and lists the specific elements (login state, tier, credits remaining, reset time). This verb+resource construction distinguishes it from sibling tools like optimize_image and upgrade.
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 provides explicit guidance to use before batch processing for credit verification. While it doesn't mention alternatives, the use case is clear and distinct from siblings.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: optimize_image performs the core image optimization task, status checks account/credit info, and upgrade handles plan changes. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Naming is mixed: optimize_image follows a verb_noun pattern, upgrade is a bare verb, and status is a bare noun. The inconsistency is minor given the small set, but a pattern like check_status or get_status would be more consistent.
Three tools is on the small side but appropriate for a focused image optimization service. The core operation plus two supporting account tools feels reasonable, though additional utilities like batch or history could be justified.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of the service: optimizing images, checking credits before batch processing, and upgrading when credits run out. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated domain.