atlas7_readinessSubscription-gated semantic readiness and entitlement status. Existing DeltaSignal readiness remains available through x402; this semantic surface requires Marketplace subscription.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum readiness rows. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context about subscription gating and the availability of the DeltaSignal readiness path through x402, which goes beyond what annotations provide. It does not describe the output format, but an output schema exists and the tool is a simple status check.
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 concise sentences. The first sentence states the tool's purpose and gating, and the second provides the alternative path. Every clause earns its place, with no redundant or filler 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, read-only, status-check tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the key contextual aspects: what the tool reports (readiness/entitlement), the subscription requirement, and the relationship to the DeltaSignal route. No additional behavioral detail is necessary for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
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, 'limit,' is fully described in the schema with a clear description ('Maximum readiness rows') and min/max constraints, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any further semantic detail about the parameter, and none is needed beyond what the schema already provides.
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 resource as ATLAS-7 semantic readiness and entitlement status, and distinguishes it from the existing DeltaSignal readiness surface by noting the subscription gate. However, it lacks an explicit action verb (e.g., 'get' or 'check'), relying on the noun phrase 'readiness and entitlement status' to imply a status/readiness query.
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?
It explicitly mentions the alternative 'Existing DeltaSignal readiness remains available through x402' and states that the semantic surface requires a Marketplace subscription, giving a clear condition for when to use this tool versus the alternative. It stops short of explicitly saying 'use this when you have a Marketplace subscription,' but the context strongly implies it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.