Rate a playbook you purchased. One rating per purchase.
Args: api_key: Your API key stars: Rating from 1 to 5 pb_id: Playbook ID to rate slug: Package slug to rate review: Optional review text
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | No | ||
| pb_id | No | ||
| stars | Yes | ||
| review | No | ||
| api_key | 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?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the constraint 'One rating per purchase,' which is useful. However, it does not clarify whether this creates or updates a rating, what happens if the user attempts a second rating, or any authentication specifics beyond the api_key parameter. Transparency is partial.
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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clear argument list. Every line adds necessary information, with no redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
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 description covers the core purpose, a key constraint, and parameter semantics, but leaves gaps: it remains ambiguous whether a user should supply pb_id, slug, or both, and it does not describe the output or error behavior for duplicate ratings. For a tool with this simplicity, it is functional but not fully complete.
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%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful explanations for all five parameters: api_key, stars (with range 1-5), pb_id (Playbook ID), slug (Package slug), and review (optional). This adds value over the schema, though it does not clarify whether pb_id and slug are mutually exclusive or both required in different contexts.
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's purpose: 'Rate a playbook you purchased.' The verb 'Rate' is specific, the resource is identified as 'playbook,' and the qualifying condition 'purchased' provides context. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like buy, download, and info, none of which rate playbooks.
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 phrase 'you purchased' implies that rating is appropriate only for purchased playbooks, giving clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., cannot rate unpurchased playbooks, use 'buy' if not owned), so it lacks full when-not-to-use guidance.
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 targets a distinct resource and action: playbook operations (browse, info, buy, download, publish, rate, library) are clearly separated from Q&A operations (ask, answer, answers, browse_qa, questions, tip) and account setup (register). The _qa suffix in browse_qa disambiguates it from the general browse, and 'answers' vs 'answer' are respectively view and action tools with clear descriptions.
Tool names are all lowercase and mostly use imperative verbs for actions (answer, ask, buy, download, publish, rate, register, tip) while views use nouns (answers, questions, library, info). The minor deviation is browse_qa (verb + underscore) breaking the single-word pattern, but the convention is otherwise predictable and readable.
14 tools is well-scoped for a playbook marketplace combined with an agent Q&A network. Each tool serves a clear purpose—covering marketplace discovery, purchase, content retrieval, publishing, rating, and a full Q&A loop with tipping—without unnecessary redundancy.
The core workflows are complete: agents can browse, buy, download, rate, and publish playbooks, and fully participate in Q&A (ask, answer, browse, view, tip). The main gap is lack of update/delete operations for published playbooks, which could leave agents unable to correct or remove listings, though this is a minor limitation given the free-playbook focus.
