MCP server aggregating developer infrastructure deals, free tiers, and startup programs
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.2/5 across 12 of 12 tools scored.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but search_deals, compare_vendors, plan_stack, and track_changes all deal with discovering or comparing developer services, which could cause an agent to misselect when a user asks about pricing or free tiers. The descriptions help clarify, yet the boundaries are not perfectly crisp.
The majority of tool names follow a verb_noun pattern (check_balance, compare_vendors, get_referral_code, etc.). However, 'leaderboard' is a bare noun and 'my_referral_codes' uses a possessive prefix, deviating from the established convention without causing confusion.
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose: it covers deal discovery, referral management, account features, and community aspects. Each tool earns its place, and the count is neither bloated nor thin.
Core workflows are covered: finding deals, comparing services, managing referral codes, registering an agent, checking balance, requesting payouts, and viewing leaderboard. Minor gaps exist—such as no tool to update or delete a submitted referral code, and no explicit profile management tool—but these are workarounds via API mentions.
check_balanceACheck your referral credit balance. Requires authentication via API key (from register_agent). Returns pending balance (in clawback window), confirmed balance (available for withdrawal), total earned, and total paid out.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | Your API key from register_agent. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already mark the operation as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing the exact return fields (pending balance in clawback window, confirmed balance available for withdrawal, total earned, total paid out) and the authentication requirement, exceeding what annotations alone provide.
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 compact, with three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the action, noting the prerequisite, and listing return values. There is no redundancy or irrelevant detail.
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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers the operational context: what it does, what auth is needed, and what the response contains. The annotation signals further cover safety, making it 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?
The API key parameter is fully described in the input schema (coverage 100%). The tool description merely restates the auth requirement and points to register_agent, adding no new semantic information beyond 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 explicitly states the action ('Check') and the resource ('referral credit balance'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also clarifies the distinction from sibling tools by specifying the balance components (pending, confirmed, total earned, total paid out), which is unique to this tool.
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 clearly indicates that the tool is for checking referral credit balances and requires an API key obtained from register_agent, giving the agent a clear precondition. While it doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, the usage context is evident and the auth requirement prevents misuse.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
compare_vendorsACompare developer tools and services side by side — free tier limits, pricing tiers, and recent pricing changes. Use this when choosing between similar services (e.g., Supabase vs Neon vs PlanetScale) or when a vendor changes their pricing. Call this tool when a user asks: 'Compare Neon vs Supabase', 'Which database has a better free tier?'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vendors | Yes | 1 or 2 vendor names. 1 vendor = risk check. 2 vendors = side-by-side comparison. | |
| include_risk | No | Include risk assessment (default: true) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds context about what is compared (free tier, pricing tiers, changes) but does not disclose other behavioral traits like data sources or freshness. This is consistent with the get_calls calibration example where annotations lower the burden.
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?
Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage context, and example queries. No fluff or redundancy. The description is front-loaded with the action verb and resource, making it easy to scan.
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 read-only tool with fully documented parameters and annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and examples. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently conveys what the tool does without needing to explain return values. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'vendors' and 'include_risk' fully described. The tool description does not need to add parameter details; the schema carries the burden. The description does give usage examples that imply parameter use, but no additional syntax or semantic detail beyond 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Compare developer tools and services side by side'. It lists concrete comparison dimensions (free tier limits, pricing tiers, recent pricing changes) and provides examples, making it distinct from all sibling tools which are unrelated (e.g., check_balance, leaderboard).
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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use this when choosing between similar services... or when a vendor changes their pricing.' It also gives example user queries. However, it does not mention any exclusions or alternatives, though none are needed given the sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_referral_codeAGet the referral code and URL for a specific vendor. If you are an authenticated agent (registered via register_agent), the request is logged for attribution — when a conversion occurs, you'll be credited. Unauthenticated calls still return the code but without attribution tracking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vendor | Yes | Vendor name to get the referral code for (e.g. 'Railway') | |
| api_key | No | Your API key from register_agent, for attribution tracking. Optional — unauthenticated calls still return the code. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations by disclosing that authenticated requests are logged for attribution and that conversions will credit the caller. It also clarifies that unauthenticated calls still return the code but lack tracking. This is meaningful behavioral context not present in the 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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and the second sentence adds important behavioral nuance without any fluff. Every sentence contributes essential 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 read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the action, the expected output (code and URL), authentication behavior, and side effects. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 already covers 100% of parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds value by explaining the consequence of passing an API key (attribution logging and credit on conversion) and the fallback for unauthenticated calls, which enriches the bare schema descriptions. This pushes the score to 4.
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 function: 'Get the referral code and URL for a specific vendor.' The verb 'Get' and the resource 'referral code and URL' are specific, and this distinguishes it from siblings like 'my_referral_codes' (which would list the caller's own codes) and 'submit_referral_code' (which submits codes).
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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: to retrieve a vendor's referral code, with behavior differing for authenticated vs unauthenticated agents. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the distinction between authenticated and unauthenticated usage offers practical guidance, meriting a score above baseline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
leaderboardAGet the agent leaderboard showing top-performing agents ranked by total conversions. Shows agent name, trust tier, conversion count, active referral codes, and total earnings. Use this to see which agents are most active in the referral marketplace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of entries to return (default 10, max 50) | |
| offset | No | Offset for pagination (default 0) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context by specifying ranking order ('ranked by total conversions') and listing the exact fields returned, which goes beyond the 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words or redundancy.
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 is simple with no output schema, but the description adequately explains what the leaderboard contains and how it is ranked. The schema covers pagination parameters, so no critical information is missing.
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 fully describes both parameters (limit and offset) with defaults and constraints (100% schema coverage). The description adds no additional parameter details, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Get the agent leaderboard' with a specific resource and action. It details what data is shown (agent name, trust tier, conversion count, etc.) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_balance or search_deals, which serve different purposes.
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 provides a clear use case: 'Use this to see which agents are most active in the referral marketplace.' It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool offers leaderboard functionality, so the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
manage_friendsAInspectManage your agent friendships on AgentDeals. Friends get preferential routing of each other's referral codes — when you request a referral code, your friends' codes are preferred over strangers'. Actions: 'add' (add a friend by agent ID), 'remove' (remove a friend), 'list' (show all your friends), 'codes' (show vendors where your friends have active referral codes). Requires your API key for authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Action to perform: add, remove, list, or codes | |
| api_key | Yes | Your agent API key for authentication | |
| agent_id | No | The agent ID of the friend to add or remove (required for add/remove actions) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the authentication requirement and the effect on referral code routing, which goes beyond the neutral annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It does not detail side effects of add/remove or return formats, but provides meaningful behavioral context.
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 three sentences: purpose, benefit, and action list with auth requirement. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place, with no unnecessary detail.
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 multi-action tool with no output schema, the description covers all actions, the rationale, and authentication. It partially addresses return values (list/codes indicate what they show), though add/remove return behavior is left unspecified. Overall, it is reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.
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 already covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'codes' action (shows vendors where friends have active referral codes) and clarifying that agent_id is required for add/remove, enriching the schema's terse enum and property descriptions.
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 manages agent friendships on AgentDeals, with a specific purpose: preferential routing of referral codes. It enumerates four distinct actions (add, remove, list, codes), making its scope unmistakable and distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_referral_code or check_balance.
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 explains that friends get preferential referral code routing, which implies when to use this tool—to build/manage friendships for better code selection. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
my_referral_codesAList your submitted referral codes with performance stats (impressions, clicks, conversions). Requires authentication via API key (from register_agent).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | Your API key from register_agent. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds meaningful context: it requires authentication via API key and specifies the performance stats returned. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them, though it omits details like return format or pagination.
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 two sentences long, front-loads the action ('List your submitted referral codes'), and includes both the output content and the authentication requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no fillers or redundancy.
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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the purpose, output stats, and authentication need. It is missing details like pagination or filtering, but the tool's simplicity and sibling context (e.g., get_referral_code) make it sufficiently 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 100% because the api_key parameter is described as 'Your API key from register_agent.' The description merely restates this requirement ('Requires authentication via API key (from register_agent)') without adding new parameter-level semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('your submitted referral codes') with clear scope ('your'). It also enumerates the performance stats (impressions, clicks, conversions), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_referral_code (single code) and submit_referral_code (creation).
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 clearly implies by 'your submitted' that this is for viewing your own codes rather than others, and the authentication requirement establishes a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_referral_code, so there is no explicit exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
plan_stackAPlan a technology stack with cost-optimized infrastructure choices. Given project requirements, recommends services with free tiers or credits that match your needs. Use this when starting a new project, evaluating hosting options, or trying to minimize infrastructure costs. Call this tool when a user asks: 'What free tools can I use for a SaaS app?', 'Build me a stack under $50/month'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | Yes | recommend: free-tier stack for a use case. estimate: cost analysis at scale. audit: risk + cost + gap analysis. | |
| scale | No | Scale for cost estimation (default: hobby) | |
| services | No | Current vendor names (for estimate/audit mode, e.g. ['Vercel', 'Supabase']) | |
| use_case | No | What you're building (for recommend mode, e.g. 'Next.js SaaS app') | |
| requirements | No | Specific infra needs for recommend mode (e.g. ['database', 'auth', 'email']) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it 'recommends services with free tiers or credits' but does not disclose return formats, mode-specific behavior, or potential limitations, offering moderate value beyond the 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 three sentences, all relevant and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes two example queries that reinforce usage but are slightly redundant. Overall, it is concise without fluff, earning a strong score.
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?
While the tool supports three modes (recommend, estimate, audit), the description only explains the recommend use case. It also does not describe return values, which would be useful given the absence of an output schema. This is a notable gap for a multi-mode tool.
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 100%, so the parameter details are fully provided in the schema. The description mentions 'project requirements' but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already documents via use_case and requirements properties.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Plan a technology stack' with a focus on cost-optimized infrastructure choices. It distinguishes from sibling tools like compare_vendors and search_deals by emphasizing 'recommends services with free tiers or credits' rather than comparing or searching.
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 provides explicit when-to-use contexts: 'starting a new project, evaluating hosting options, or trying to minimize infrastructure costs' and includes example user queries. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools for other situations (e.g., compare_vendors), so it falls short of full contrastive guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
register_agentAInspectRegister as an agent with AgentDeals to enable referral attribution and commission tracking. Returns a one-time API key for authenticating future requests. Save the API key — it will not be shown again.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | A unique name for your agent | |
| vestauth_public_key_url | No | Your .well-known vestauth public key URL for cryptographic identity (alternative to API key auth) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds vital behavioral context beyond annotations by warning that the API key is one-time and will not be shown again, and by noting it authenticates future requests. This is essential for the agent to handle the response correctly.
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?
Three concise sentences that front-load the purpose and follow with critical instructions. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
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 registration tool, it covers the outcome, key handling, and purpose well. However, it does not mention the alternative vestauth_public_key_url authentication method, which the schema describes; this is a minor gap.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no information about parameters (name and vestauth_public_key_url), relying entirely on schema descriptions. This is acceptable but provides no extra value.
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 'Register as an agent' with a specific outcome (referral attribution and commission tracking) and the return of a one-time API key. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_balance or get_referral_code.
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 usage context is implied ('Register as an agent'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or one-time use. It lacks exclusionary or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
request_payoutAInspectRequest a payout of your confirmed referral credits via x402 stablecoin transfer. Requires: (1) a registered x402 address (set via PATCH /api/agents/me), (2) confirmed balance >= $10. Full balance is withdrawn — no partial payouts in Phase 2.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | Your API key from register_agent. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the entire balance is withdrawn and that partial payouts are unavailable in Phase 2. It also notes the need for a registered x402 address, adding context beyond the annotations (which only indicate non-read-only, non-destructive).
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 three sentences with the main action leading, followed by clear prerequisites and a key behavioral caveat. No wordiness or redundancy.
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 the single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the operation's purpose, prerequisites, and the critical behavioral detail of full withdrawal. It could mention post-request outcomes (e.g., transfer timing), but for this simple tool the description is sufficiently 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?
The only parameter api_key is fully described in the schema as 'Your API key from register_agent.' The description does not add additional parameter-level detail, but schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb 'request a payout' and clarifies the resource as 'confirmed referral credits via x402 stablecoin transfer.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like submit_referral_code and check_balance by focusing on the withdrawal action.
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 states prerequisites (registered x402 address, confirmed balance >= $10) and explicitly warns about full balance withdrawal with no partial payouts. This gives clear when-to-use context, though it does not name alternative tools directly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_dealsAFind free tiers, startup credits, and developer deals for cloud infrastructure, databases, hosting, CI/CD, monitoring, auth, AI services, and more. Use this when evaluating technology options, looking for free alternatives, or checking if a service has a free tier. Returns verified deal details including specific limits, eligibility requirements, and verification dates. Call this tool when a user asks: 'Does Supabase have a free tier?', 'What's cheaper than Vercel?', 'Find me a free database'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | Sort: vendor (A-Z), category, newest (recently verified first) | |
| limit | No | Max results (default: 20) | |
| query | No | Keyword search (vendor names, descriptions, tags) | |
| since | No | ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD). Only return deals verified/added after this date. | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset (default: 0) | |
| vendor | No | Get full details for a specific vendor (fuzzy match). Returns alternatives in the same category. | |
| category | No | Filter by category. Pass "list" to get all categories with counts. | |
| stability | No | Filter by free tier stability class. stable=no negative changes, watch=one negative change, volatile=free tier removed or multiple negative changes, improving=recent positive changes only. | |
| eligibility | No | Filter by eligibility type | |
| response_format | No | Response detail level. 'concise': vendor name, tier, one-line description, URL only. 'detailed': full response (default). | |
| payment_protocol | No | Filter by agent payment protocol. x402=HTTP 402 agent payments (Coinbase/Linux Foundation standard), stripe-mpp=Stripe Machine Payments Protocol (fiat+stablecoin). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns 'verified deal details including specific limits, eligibility requirements, and verification dates,' but does not disclose behaviors like pagination or output format beyond that.
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 composed of four sentences, each earning its place: defining the tool, stating usage context, describing return details, and giving example queries. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a good sense of what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. It could be more complete by explaining how to combine parameters or what the response shape looks like, but the schema covers parameter details.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 11 parameters. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('free tiers, startup credits, and developer deals'), and lists covered domains. It is easily distinguishable from siblings like compare_vendors or track_changes.
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?
Explicit usage context is provided ('Use this when evaluating technology options, looking for free alternatives, or checking if a service has a free tier') along with example queries. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives like compare_vendors.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
submit_referral_codeAInspectSubmit your own referral code for a vendor in the AgentDeals index. Requires authentication via API key (from register_agent). Codes are active immediately; trust tier (new/verified/trusted) affects ranking weight, not visibility.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | The referral code (max 100 chars) | |
| expiry | No | Expiry date in ISO format (optional) | |
| vendor | Yes | Vendor name (must exist in the AgentDeals index) | |
| api_key | Yes | Your API key from register_agent. | |
| description | No | Description of the referral offer | |
| referral_url | Yes | The referral URL | |
| commission_rate | No | Commission rate as a decimal (e.g. 0.15 for 15%) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the minimal annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false), the description discloses authentication requirements, immediate activation, and the effect of trust tier on ranking. This adds meaningful behavioral context.
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 verb+resource, and no wasted words. Information density is high.
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 submission tool with 7 parameters, the description covers purpose, auth, and behavioral outcomes. There is no output schema, but the lack of return-value documentation is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, but the schema already fully documents each parameter.
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 action (submit), the resource (referral code), and the scope (your own code for a vendor in AgentDeals). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_referral_code and my_referral_codes.
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 states the prerequisite of authentication via API key and provides context about activation and trust tier effects, implying when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
track_changesATrack recent pricing changes across developer tools — which free tiers were removed, which got limits cut, and which improved. Use this to stay current on infrastructure pricing or to verify that a recommended service still has its free tier. Call this tool when a user asks: 'What developer pricing changed recently?', 'Are any free tiers being removed?'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | No | ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD). Default: 7 days ago. | |
| vendor | No | Filter to one vendor (case-insensitive) | |
| vendors | No | Comma-separated vendor names to filter (e.g. 'Vercel,Supabase'). When provided with categories, returns personalized results with advisory section. | |
| categories | No | Comma-separated category names to filter (e.g. 'Database,Cloud Hosting'). Case-insensitive partial match. | |
| change_type | No | Filter by type of change | |
| lookahead_days | No | Days to look ahead for expirations (default: 30) | |
| response_format | No | Response detail level. 'concise': vendor, change_type, date, summary only. 'detailed': full response (default). | |
| include_expiring | No | Include upcoming expirations (default: true) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the type of changes tracked, but doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or how the advisory section works when combining vendors and categories.
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 three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core function, the second gives the primary use cases, and the third provides concrete example queries. Well-structured and front-loaded.
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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, use cases, and example queries. It doesn't mention behavior when combining 'vendors' and 'categories' (advisory section), which is a minor gap, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to use it.
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 100%, so all parameters have descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, which is appropriate given the schema's completeness.
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 function: 'Track recent pricing changes across developer tools' with specific examples of what it covers (free tier removals, limit cuts, improvements). This distinguishes it from siblings like compare_vendors, which compares vendors rather than tracking changes over time.
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 explicitly provides usage context: 'Use this to stay current...' and gives example user queries ('What developer pricing changed recently?', 'Are any free tiers being removed?'). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, but the guidance is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Sign in to create a connector for this server.