Personalized cold email from proven templates ($0.01 USDC on Base, x402)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Recipient name | |
| offer | No | What you are offering | |
| company | No | Recipient company | |
| persona | No | founder | agency | freelancer |
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?
The description discloses the cost and payment mechanism ($0.01 USDC on Base, x402), which is valuable and not present in annotations. However, it does not clarify whether the tool actually sends the email, what output format is returned, or any rate limits or side effects beyond the fee. With no annotations provided, this partial disclosure earns a midpoint score.
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, compact sentence that communicates the core value proposition and pricing with no filler. It is front-loaded and easy to scan, though it omits some behavioral details that would make it more complete.
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 paid tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should state what the returned email looks like and any side effects beyond cost. It also fails to explain how the optional parameters affect the result, leaving an agent uncertain about default behavior and required inputs.
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 provides clear descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema; it only says 'personalized' without explaining how name, offer, company, or persona shape the final output.
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 deliverable: a personalized cold email built from proven templates. It implicitly distinguishes this from sibling tools like email_grade and deliverability_audit, which analyze email rather than generate content. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'generate' or 'create', so the action is implied rather than stated.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. None of the sibling tools are referenced, and there are no conditions, exclusions, or use-case hints beyond the basic notion of creating a cold email. An agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.
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 clear, non-overlapping purpose: catalog lists the paid tools, and the others cover distinct utilities like crypto pricing, email deliverability, hashing, JWT decoding, regex, slugify, UUID generation, and weather. Even the three email-related tools are clearly separated by description: deliverability audit, score, and template.
Most tools follow a lowercase snake_case noun_noun pattern (crypto_price, domain_age, email_grade), but catalog and weather are bare nouns, slugify is verb-based, and jwt_decode is object+verb. The pattern is readable despite the inconsistency, but not uniform.
Thirteen tools is within the reasonable range for a paid micro-tool marketplace, and each tool has its own niche. The presence of a meta-catalog tool plus 12 discrete utilities makes the count feel slightly like a grab-bag, but still well-scoped for the stated purpose.
The advertised surface is a catalog of exactly 12 paid tools, and all 12 utilities are present and functional with free preview routes mentioned. There is no obvious missing operation for a stateless utility collection, though the heterogeneous nature of the tools makes completeness less meaningful than for a focused domain server.