AGENT DATASTORE — drop one of your wallet's collections and all its rows. Cheap on purpose: clean up after yourself and stay under quota. ($0.001 per call, paid via x402)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| collection | No | Collection name in the URL path |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| collection | No | ||
| deleted_rows | No |
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 states the tool drops a collection and all its rows, which is destructive, but the annotation destructiveHint=false indicates the tool is not destructive. This is a clear contradiction, leading to a score of 1.
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-loaded with the core purpose. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy or wasted space.
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 has one parameter and an output schema (not shown). The description provides cost and usage context. However, the contradiction between description and annotations undermines completeness. It adequately covers the tool's purpose but fails to align with behavioral signals.
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 has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'collection'. The description in the schema is sufficient ('Collection name in the URL path'), and the tool description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond that.
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 verb 'drop' and the resource 'collections in your wallet's datastore'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_store_collection and post_store_collection, as there is no other delete tool for store collections.
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 context for when to use the tool: 'clean up after yourself and stay under quota'. It mentions the cost, implying use for cleanup tasks, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. However, no alternative delete tool exists among siblings.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but the SEO-related tools (head_check, full_audit, site_audit, etc.) overlap in scope, potentially causing confusion despite clear descriptions.
Tool names consistently follow a get_/post_/delete_ verb pattern with descriptive noun phrases (e.g., get_seo_head_check, post_store_collection), with no mixing of naming conventions.
With 46 tools covering a wide breadth of domains (SEO, accessibility, music, crypto, linting, etc.), the count is excessive for a single server, feeling unfocused and heavy.
The tool set covers most core operations for each sub-domain, but minor gaps exist (e.g., missing update for datastore, limited music operations).
