discover_networksList authoritative chain/network keys available in the current release. Call this first to choose a valid chain before discover_categories or search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| analytics | No | Optional analytics context. It is ignored by tool execution and recorded only for usage analytics. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / analyticsAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional analytics context. It is ignored by tool execution and recorded only for usage analytics.",
+ "properties": {
+ "conversation_id": {
+ "description": "Optional conversation identifier.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "interaction_id": {
+ "description": "Optional interaction/message identifier.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "source": {
+ "description": "Optional analytics source identifier.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "user_query": {
+ "description": "Original user query or prompt that led to this tool call, if available.",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It conveys that the tool is a read-only listing ('List...') and scopes it to the 'current release', but it does not mention return format, pagination, error behavior, or any prerequisites like authentication. This is adequate but not deeply 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 with no wasted words. It leads with the action ('List...') and immediately follows with usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.
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 discovery tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough context to call it first and pick a valid chain. It is slightly incomplete because it does not hint at the structure of the returned keys or handle the edge case of no available chains, but it is sufficient for its simplicity.
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 only parameter is an optional analytics object, and the schema description covers it fully (100%), stating it is 'ignored by tool execution and recorded only for usage analytics.' The tool description does not need to add anything; baseline of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List authoritative chain/network keys available in the current release.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly naming discover_categories and search as downstream tools, making the 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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Call this first to choose a valid chain before discover_categories or search.' It names the alternatives and states the ordering, which is exactly what an agent needs to select the correct tool.
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.
The 'execute' tool is a catch-all for registry actions, connection management, and runtime actions, creating ambiguity about when to use it versus the more specific discover_* and search tools. The other tools are distinct, but the overlap with execute's broad scope causes confusion.
Tool names mix bare verbs ('execute', 'search') with verb-noun patterns ('discover_categories', 'discover_networks'), plus one compound 'bind_credentials_bag'. This inconsistent style violates the predictable convention expected in a well-coherent tool set.
Five tools is within the ideal range for a focused MCP server. The count feels reasonable, though the broad scope of 'execute' suggests it may be absorbing many operations that could be split into more distinct tools.
The server covers discovery, search, and credential binding, but the generic 'execute' tool is the only gateway to mutations and connection management. This makes the surface technically complete but poorly structured, as significant functionality is hidden inside a single opaque entrypoint.