Create an ICME Preflight account with a credit card ($5.00 via Stripe). Returns a checkout_url — open it in a browser to pay. After payment completes, call poll_session with the session_id to retrieve your API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes | Unique username (1-32 chars, alphanumeric + hyphens/underscores) |
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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the payment flow, return value (checkout_url), and the follow-up step, which is valuable behavioral context beyond 'create account'. It doesn't mention failure modes or permission requirements, but the core behavior is transparent.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose and cost, then the follow-up procedure. Every sentence adds necessary information with no fluff or repetition.
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, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the full flow including the returned checkout_url and the next step (poll_session), which is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly. Minor gaps like error handling or specific failure behavior are not critical for this simple 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?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'username' with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so the schema is sufficient and 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 clearly states 'Create an ICME Preflight account with a credit card' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'create_account' by specifying payment method and cost, making the tool's unique purpose unambiguous.
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 explicit context: returns checkout_url, instructs to open in browser, and directs to call poll_session with session_id after payment. Though it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, the sequence and prerequisites are clear enough for an agent to know when this tool is appropriate.
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 role, but the presence of payment-method variants (check_action vs check_action_paid, create_account vs create_account_card, top_up vs top_up_card) introduces minor overlap that is clearly explained. The check tools are differentiated by output detail and purpose, though quick_check and check_action could be confused at a glance.
Names predominantly follow a verb_noun pattern (check_action, create_account, run_tests), with consistent _paid and _card suffixes for payment variants. Minor deviations like quick_check (adjective_noun) and top_up (phrasal verb) are understandable but break the pattern slightly.
With 14 tools, the set covers the full lifecycle of policy creation, testing, action checking, payment, and proof verification without bloat. Each tool serves a clear purpose within the service's scope.
The primary workflow (create policy, test policy, check actions, verify proofs) is well covered, including multiple payment options. Missing utilities like listing or deleting policies and credit balance checks are minor gaps that don't block the core use case.