Free plan, prices, x402 parameters and the trial offer: sign-up with a confirmed e-mail = 90 days without paywall (trial field; with a session it shows the state).
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does provide some behavioral detail: signing up with a confirmed e-mail grants 90 days without a paywall, and the `trial` field shows state when a session is present. However, it does not clearly state whether the tool is read-only, what the full response contains, or how session absence affects output.
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 and front-loads key billing topics, but it is dense and awkwardly structured. The phrase 'x402 parameters' is unclear, and the parenthetical and semicolon construction make the trial-state behavior harder to parse than necessary.
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 more fully explain what an agent can expect from calling this tool. It covers several billing aspects and mentions the `trial` field, but it does not explicitly state the tool's return value, whether it is informational only, or how the billing state is presented.
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 input schema is already exhaustive. The description adds useful context about billing terms and trial state, which is appropriate since there are no parameter semantics to document.
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 communicates that the tool is related to billing topics—free plan, prices, x402 parameters, and trial offer—but it never states an explicit action such as 'returns', 'gets', or 'shows billing info'. It is more than a tautology, but the lack of a verb makes the purpose somewhat vague.
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, no exclusions, and no explicit context like 'use this when the user asks about pricing or trial eligibility'. The billing topics imply possible use cases, but the agent is left to infer when this tool should be selected.
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 relate to auditing (audit_url, get_audit, run_tab) which might cause confusion, but descriptions clarify the differences. Overall, there is some overlap but each has a distinct role.
Most tools follow verb_noun pattern, but a few (billing, contact, health, api_index) are plain nouns, making the naming inconsistent.
With 14 tools, the server covers core audit functionality plus auxiliary features like billing and health, which is appropriate for its scope.
The server provides tools for auditing URLs, managing tabs, retrieving results, patches, badges, and listing tools. Missing delete/update operations for tabs or audits, but these are not critical for a page audit service.