Dead-man switch for cron and webhooks: ingest URL, miss detection, alerts and a status feed.
Full index of the HookPulse API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states what the tool is, not what it returns, whether it requires authentication, or whether it is a read-only listing. The simplicity of an index suggests safety, but this is not explicitly disclosed.
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?
A single, direct sentence with no filler. The key identifying phrase 'Full index of the HookPulse API' is front-loaded and contains the essential information without waste.
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?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description is not deeply inadequate, but it leaves the agent wondering what 'index' means in practice: a JSON list of endpoint names, a documentation object, or a status summary. More detail on the shape or contents would make the tool fully self-explanatory.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description need not add parameter-level detail because there is nothing to configure. No gap exists here.
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?
'Full index of the HookPulse API' clearly identifies the tool as providing a comprehensive index of the API, with a specific resource named. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_endpoints, so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.
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 api_index versus the many sibling tools. It does not mention that this is the tool to start with for an API overview, nor does it exclude alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Free plan, x402 prices and the trial offer: sign-up with a confirmed e-mail = 90 days without the usage paywall (trial field; with a session it shows the state).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds some useful behavioral context: a `trial` field exists, and its display depends on whether a session is present. Since no annotations are provided, this partial disclosure is valuable, but it still does not clarify side effects, authentication requirements, or the overall response shape.
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 compact at one sentence, but it is awkwardly structured, mixing plan terms, sign-up conditions, and a field note. Important details are not front-loaded, and the sentence requires careful parsing.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what an agent receives when calling this tool. It only hints at a `trial` field and session-dependent state, leaving the overall return value and behavior unclear. An agent would still be uncertain how to interpret the response.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema imposes no documentation burden. The description goes slightly beyond the empty schema by hinting at an output field and session-dependent behavior, which warrants a baseline of 4.
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 reads as a note about plan terms rather than a statement of what the tool actually does. It mentions free plan, x402 prices, and a trial offer, but no verb or resource scope such as 'Get billing status' or 'Return plan details'. The tool name suggests billing, but the description does not clearly define the operation.
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?
There is no guidance about when to call this tool or how it differs from sibling tools. The mention of trial state and session might imply it is for checking billing/trial information, but no explicit usage context or alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Support. Agent without captcha → 402 $0.10 x402. After the 1st message: 429 + Retry-After (backoff).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| Yes | |||
| form_ts | Yes | ||
| message | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and safety, but it only offers cryptic hints like '402 $0.10 x402' and '429 + Retry-After (backoff)'. It never states whether this tool writes, sends a message, requires authentication, or what the success behavior looks like, so the behavioral picture is incomplete.
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 text is very short, but the brevity comes from omission rather than compression, making it read like incomplete notes. It is not front-loaded with a clear purpose and leaves essential meaning unexplained.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and four required parameters, the description is incomplete: it does not say what happens on success, what form_ts means, or how to avoid the 402 and 429 conditions. The rate-limit hints are useful but not sufficient for confident invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to explain name, email, message, and form_ts. It does not define or clarify any of these parameters; the single use of 'message' appears in an operational note, not as a parameter explanation.
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 opens with 'Support' and otherwise only provides error/rate-limit hints, but it never states a clear verb and resource such as 'submit a support request'. The schema implies a contact form via name, email, message, and form_ts, but the description does not itself say what the tool does or distinguish it from siblings like create_guest or billing.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use contact versus another tool, and no alternative is named or excluded. The 'Support' fragment is a vague domain hint, while the 402/429 details are operational traits rather than instructions for choosing this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Creates a dead-man endpoint. May return 402 x402 when it leaves the free tier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| alert_to | No | ||
| alert_url | No | ||
| guest_token | Yes | ||
| interval_sec | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful warning about a possible 402 response but does not disclose authentication needs, side effects, lifecycle behavior of the dead-man endpoint, or what 'leaves the free tier' means.
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 text is short and front-loads the main action, with the caveat placed in the second sentence. The 'x402' phrasing is awkward, but the description is otherwise economical.
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?
Given five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far too thin. It omits parameter meaning, success response shape, and any operational context needed to invoke the endpoint creation 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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the five parameters. An agent cannot tell what alert_to, alert_url, interval_sec, or even guest_token mean from this definition.
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 states a specific verb ('Creates') and resource ('dead-man endpoint'), making the tool's basic function clear. It is distinguishable from endpoint read/delete/list siblings by action, though it does not explicitly differentiate from create_guest or explain what a dead-man endpoint is.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the endpoint-related siblings, nor any conditions, exclusions, or alternatives mentioned. The only implied usage is that it creates an endpoint, which is not enough to route an agent confidently.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Creates a guest token hp_…
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It identifies that this creates/mutates state, but it does not disclose whether authentication is required, how long the guest token remains valid, or what happens after creation. For a mutation-style tool, this is a clear gap.
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 extremely short with no filler. It immediately conveys the action and the resource, and every part of the text contributes useful information.
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 is simple with zero parameters, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description implies the created guest token is the result but does not explicitly state the return value, token lifetime, or intended use. This is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter details, and the mention of the 'hp_' prefix is helpful context for the resulting token.
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 states a specific verb, 'Creates', and a specific resource, 'guest token hp_…'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling create_endpoint and other tools by naming the exact thing produced.
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 implies the tool should be used when a guest token is needed, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose it over alternatives or any exclusions. There is no mention of prerequisites, auth context, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Removes the owner's endpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| guest_token | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Removes' signals destructiveness, but it does not mention irreversibility, required permissions, side effects, or what happens to dependent resources.
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 focused sentence with no filler and front-loads the action. It is concise to the point of being sparse, but the brevity itself is not a flaw.
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 destructive delete operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits consequences, authentication expectations, error behavior, and any guidance about the guest_token's role, leaving the agent under-informed for safe invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters, but it does not. The names 'id' and 'guest_token' are weakly suggestive but not defined, leaving the agent to guess their roles.
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 ('Removes') and a resource ('the owner's endpoint'), making the core action clear. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings, but the delete semantics are unmistakable against create/get/list.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, or about prerequisites such as ownership or token validity. The description implies deletion but offers no context about appropriate conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Status of one endpoint (use the endpoint token if you have it).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| token | No | endpoint token (query) | |
| guest_token | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior such as read-only safety, auth requirements, or missing-endpoint responses. It only says 'Status of one endpoint' and does not address these aspects, leaving the agent without enough behavioral context.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical token guidance earns its place by giving actionable parameter advice.
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?
With three parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and several sibling tools, this description is too thin. An agent still cannot determine which identifier to pass in which scenario, what the status response contains, or when to prefer list_endpoints.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 33%, and the description adds a useful hint to use the endpoint token if available. However, it does not explain the required id parameter, the role of guest_token, or how these identifiers relate, so it does not compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 that the tool reports the status of a single endpoint, which distinguishes it from list_endpoints and create/delete_endpoint. It uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, but the intent is unambiguous and resource-specific.
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 singular 'one endpoint' implies this is for individual status lookups, and the token hint provides an identifier preference. However, it never explicitly names list_endpoints as the alternative for multiple endpoints or states when this tool should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Liveness.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Liveness' only implies a read-only health check but does not state side effects, return values, failure behavior, or any operational detail that an agent would need to interpret the result.
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?
A single word is under-specification rather than conciseness. It provides no useful structure, and while short, it fails to convey sufficient meaning.
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?
Even for a simple health-check tool, the description is inadequate. Without an output schema or any elaboration on what 'liveness' means in terms of response or behavior, an agent cannot know how to use the result.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema already covers everything, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools 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 'Liveness' is a noun that essentially restates the tool name 'health' without specifying any action or resource. It is a tautology rather than a concrete statement of what the tool does, and it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like ping_ingest.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus any alternative. There is no mention of contexts, exclusions, prerequisites, or relationships to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Lists the guest's/session's endpoints.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| guest_token | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Lists', which names the operation but does not describe return shape, pagination, error behavior, permissions, or whether the operation is read-only beyond the verb itself.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it immediate and easy to parse.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. An agent still lacks information about the expected return value, how guest_token affects results, potential errors, and any session-versus-guest scope ambiguity.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining guest_token. The phrase 'guest's/session's' loosely hints at ownership but does not explicitly define what guest_token is, how it is used, or what values are acceptable.
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 action ('Lists') and the resource ('guest's/session's endpoints'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_endpoint, relying on the plural form to imply a list operation.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_endpoint, create_endpoint, or delete_endpoint. There is no mention of typical call scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites beyond the required guest_token.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Latest ingest pings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| token | No | ||
| guest_token | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only hints at the content ('Latest ingest pings'). It does not state whether the operation is read-only, how results are ordered or paginated, what authentication is needed, or what the response contains.
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 short but not usefully concise; it is an under-specified fragment rather than a complete sentence. It omits the action, parameters, and any contextual details needed to use the tool.
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 three parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a description that is only a fragment. This is far too little information for an agent to construct a correct call or interpret the result.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to explain id, token, and guest_token. It mentions none of them, leaving all three parameters completely undefined in prose.
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 is a noun phrase ('Latest ingest pings') rather than an explicit statement of what the tool does; it names a resource but never says the tool lists or retrieves it. It also provides no differentiation from siblings like list_endpoints or list_templates.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ping_ingest or list_endpoints. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are given, so an agent must guess the intended use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Ingest snippets and the JSON HookPulse POSTs on a miss.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It gives a cryptic phrase about ingesting snippets and POSTing on a miss, which does not explain what the tool actually does, what side effects occur, or what happens when invoked.
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 short but not informative; it is under-specified rather than concise. The words do not earn their place because they obscure rather than clarify the tool's purpose.
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 zero-parameter listing tool, a complete description could be as simple as 'List all templates.' The provided text fails to identify the resource or operation, making the tool effectively uncallable for an agent trying to understand what it does.
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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter meaning, but none is needed for an empty input schema.
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 'Ingest snippets and the JSON HookPulse POSTs on a miss' does not state that this tool lists templates; it describes an ingestion/fallback behavior that conflicts with the tool name. It lacks a clear verb+resource mapping and does not differentiate from sibling list tools like list_endpoints or list_events.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention templates, listing, or any condition that would lead an agent to select this tool over its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Simulates the cron: GET on /in/:id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that an HTTP GET is performed; it does not state whether this triggers side effects, what happens if the id is invalid, whether authentication is needed, or what the response contains. 'Simulates' is ambiguous about the actual effect.
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 with no padding or repetition. It front-loads the key behavioral fact (simulated cron) and the operation. It is concise, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.
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?
Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is still insufficient. It lacks return-value behavior, id semantics, and a clear statement of what 'ping_ingest' accomplishes—leaving too much for an agent to infer.
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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does add that id is used in the URL path (/in/:id), giving some syntactic context, but it never explains what the id represents (e.g., endpoint id, ingestion job id, guest id), leaving an agent without enough information to supply a correct value.
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 states a specific action: it simulates a cron GET on the /in/:id path. This names a verb (GET), a resource path, and a triggering mechanism (cron simulation), which is more than a tautology and distinguishes it from sibling tools that manage endpoints or events.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The phrase 'simulates the cron' implies a testing scenario but never explicitly says when this tool should be selected over siblings like get_endpoint or list_events.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Rotates the status feed token; the previous URL stops working.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| guest_token | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key destructive side effect (previous URL stops working), but omits other important behavioral details such as whether rotation is permanent, whether repeated rotations are allowed, or how the new token is returned.
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 focused sentence that front-loads the action and consequence. No filler or redundant wording.
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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what the agent receives after rotation and whether the optional guest_token is needed. It does not mention the new token or URL, making the tool's behavior incomplete from an agent's perspective.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the guest_token parameter at all. The description fails to explain what guest_token is, whether it is required, or how it affects the rotation, leaving the agent without necessary parameter semantics.
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 states a specific verb ('Rotates') and resource ('status feed token'), and adds a clear consequence ('the previous URL stops working'). This distinguishes it from siblings like status_feed_url, which presumably fetches the URL rather than rotating it.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as status_feed_url or create_guest. The description implies rotation is needed but does not describe conditions, prerequisites, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Public URL (JSON and RSS) with the status of all the owner's endpoints.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| guest_token | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the output format and scope, but does not mention whether the action is read-only, whether guest_token is required for access, whether the URL is ephemeral, or what happens when the token is invalid. These are significant gaps for a tool with no annotation safety hints.
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 concise, front-loading the key concept 'Public URL' and providing useful format details in parentheses. It wastes no words, though brevity comes at the cost of omitting parameter and usage context.
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 one-parameter tool, the description captures the core output but leaves the guest_token semantics, authentication behavior, and relationship to status_feed_rotate unexplained. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description alone is not enough for confident, correct invocation in all cases.
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?
There is one parameter, guest_token, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what guest_token is for, whether it is required, or how it affects the returned URL. The agent cannot determine how to populate this parameter from the description or schema.
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 tool's output as a public URL containing status information for all owner endpoints, in JSON and RSS formats. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like status_feed_rotate, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'fetches'.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as status_feed_rotate, get_endpoint, or list_endpoints. The description implies it is for retrieving a feed URL, but it does not state exclusions or conditions that would help an agent choose it over related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
api_indexbillingcontactcreate_endpointcreate_guestdelete_endpointget_endpointhealthlist_endpointslist_eventslist_templatesping_ingeststatus_feed_rotatestatus_feed_urlClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Dead-man switch monitors for cron & AI agents with dependency-cascade alerts. No account needed.
Dead-man's-switch for cron jobs & AI agents. Import a crontab to arm one silent-miss alert per job.
Dead-man switch for AI agents & cron jobs: heartbeat with state capsule, alerts + resume links
Uptime monitoring: create and manage HTTP, API, SSL, ping, port and domain checks
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: endpoint lifecycle, guest tokens, events, templates, billing, contact, health, and status feeds are clearly separated. Even related tools like get_endpoint and list_endpoints have clearly different scopes.
The create_/get_/list_/delete_ prefix pattern is consistent for resource operations, but several tools are bare nouns (api_index, billing, contact, health, status_feed_url) and status_feed_rotate reverses the expected verb-object order. The mixed style reduces predictability.
Fourteen tools is within the ideal scope for an API-focused server, and each tool provides a meaningful capability for using the HookPulse service. The count feels complete without being bloated.
The endpoint lifecycle is well covered with create, get, list, and delete, plus supporting features like events, templates, status feeds, and billing. There is no explicit update/pause endpoint operation, but that may be outside the dead-man endpoint model, so the gap is minor.
