list_flagsList submitted data flags with status and credit refund information
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {}
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "data"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safe read-only nature of the operation. The description adds that flags have status and credit refund information, but does not disclose pagination behavior, data scope, or any other behavioral details beyond the structured 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main action and resource. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or misleading content.
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 an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is mostly sufficient: it names the resource and the returned categories. It lacks only minor guidance about pagination and this is a safe read operation, so no critical information is missing for correct invocation.
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%, and the description does not mention 'page' or 'limit' at all. The parameter names and schema constraints provide some meaning, but the description does not compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in 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 states a specific action ('List'), a clear resource ('submitted data flags'), and the key information returned ('status and credit refund information'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling create_flag, which is the only closely related 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 implies this tool is for viewing existing flags rather than creating them, which distinguishes it from create_flag. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions or limitations.
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.
Several tools have overlapping purposes: email_enrichment and person_enrichment are nearly identical, and every mpp_* tool duplicates a non-MPP tool with only payment method differences. Domain-related tools like domain_search, email_count, and domain_status also blur boundaries, making selection error-prone.
Most tools follow a readable snake_case convention with clear actions like list_, create_, get, and finder/verifier/enrichment suffixes. However, ordering is inconsistent (companies_search vs domain_search, combined_enrichment vs email_finder) and a few vague names like location and autocomplete break the pattern.
38 tools is excessive for this server's scope, especially since 10 are MPP variants that simply duplicate existing functionality with a different payment model. The core feature set could be expressed in roughly half the tools without losing capability.
The toolset covers the core Tomba workflows well: email finding, verification, enrichment, domain/company search, phone lookup, and lead management. Minor gaps exist, such as no update/delete operations for leads and no detailed lead retrieval, but agents can work around these for most prospecting tasks.