browse_explorePage through existing public roasts (the /explore feed) with their shareable /result URLs. Optional free-text query and sort (newest | top | money). Read-only, no rate-limit cost — use it to see whether an idea was already roasted before minting a new one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | Sort order. Default: newest. | |
| limit | No | Max 20. Default 10. | |
| query | No | Free-text filter over name/problem. |
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 burden. It discloses read-only behavior, no rate-limit cost, and that results include shareable /result URLs. It stops short of detailing pagination mechanics (e.g., how to request the next page), but the term 'page through' and limit parameter imply standard 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then a compact list of options and a use case. Every clause earns its place without redundancy or fluff.
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 (3 optional params, no output schema) and the description covers the main behavior (browsing roasts), the data returned (result URLs), safety (read-only, no cost), and a concrete use case. It doesn't detail output format, but for a lightweight paginated list tool this is adequate.
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%, and the schema already provides descriptions for sort (with enum and default), limit (with max/default), and query ('Free-text filter over name/problem'). The description adds little beyond repeating the enum values and the query's purpose, so it stays at the baseline for high 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 opens with a specific verb ('Page through') and resource ('existing public roasts'), clearly identifying the /explore feed. It distinguishes from siblings by framing it as a read-only browsing tool used to check for prior roasts before creating a new one.
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?
Explicitly states a primary use case: 'use it to see whether an idea was already roasted before minting a new one.' It also notes read-only and no rate-limit cost, implying safe usage. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like roast_idea, but the intent is clear.
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 distinct purpose: browse_explore lists existing roasts, get_stats returns site-wide metrics, get_verdict retrieves a specific roast, and roast_idea creates a new roast. There is no overlap between these operations, and the descriptions reinforce the boundaries.
All tool names follow a clear verb_noun pattern: browse_explore, get_stats, get_verdict, roast_idea. The verbs are action-oriented and the nouns are logical objects, making it easy to predict what each tool does.
Four tools is well-scoped for this server's purpose: explore, retrieve, create, and stats. Each tool earns its place, and the count is neither too thin nor overly heavy for the domain.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of the domain: browsing existing roasts, fetching a specific verdict, creating a new roast, and viewing site statistics. There are no obvious dead ends or missing core operations.