See how users flow between brands across the network. Shows which brands are emitters (users leave to redeem elsewhere) vs attractors (users come to redeem). All data is anonymous and category-level.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| period | No | Time period for flow analysis. Defaults to "30d". |
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, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It adds context by stating data is anonymous and category-level, and uses 'Shows' implying read-only. However, it does not mention return format, permissions, or rate limits, leaving some ambiguity.
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 concise, two sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded and a parenthetical clarifying key terms. Every word earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It conveys the core concept and data characteristics, though it could benefit from a brief mention of what the output represents (e.g., category-level flows). Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'period' that has a clear enum and description. The tool description does not add additional meaning about the parameter, but the schema already fully documents it, so baseline 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 the tool's function: showing how users flow between brands, with specific concepts (emitters vs attractors). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on cross-brand flow rather than individual brand analytics or network-level stats.
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 usage for analyzing cross-brand user flow but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like network_analytics or brand_analytics. It provides context but lacks direct comparisons or exclusion criteria.
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.
Several tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., rsnc_agent_best_deals, rsnc_agent_route_purchase, and rsnc_agent_compare_cashback all help find the best purchase/reward option. Similarly, rsnc_agent_network_info, rsnc_agent_network_stats, and rsnc_agent_network_analytics provide similar network overview data with unclear boundaries.
All tools share the consistent 'rsnc_agent_' prefix, but the remainder mixes verb-first patterns (browse_perks, claim_reward, create_event) with noun-first patterns (brand_analytics, network_flows, perk_intelligence). This inconsistency makes the tool surface less predictable than a uniform verb_noun scheme.
With 45 tools, the server feels over-scoped for a rewards network. While the domain is broad, many tools are highly granular analytics variations, and the count exceeds the 25+ threshold, adding cognitive load and diminishing coherence.
The tool set covers the core lifecycle: brand discovery, onboarding, event/perk creation and updates, reward processing, user balance/stats, and redemption. Minor gaps exist, such as no delete operations for events/perks and no direct user listing, but agents can work around these.
