Skip to main content
Glama

SaSame MCP Observatory + Gold Rush Town

by online.sasame

engage_sasame

Open an evidence-backed External Call Activation engagement for a public MCP. Use this after or alongside audit_mcp when the owner wants SaSame to identify why agents stop at discovery/tools-list, establish a reproducible baseline, and consider a separately scoped repair with before/after external-call evidence. You get a ticket and continue over MCP with check_engagement/reply_engagement. Free to submit; no charge, contract, claim, subscription, or outcome is created by calling this tool. Do not paste secrets, credentials, or private payloads.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refNoOptional referral handle from the `refer` tool (e.g. 'ref_...') — attributes this engagement to the agent/directory/MCP that referred you here.
needYesThe public MCP URL and observed activation problem (e.g. 'Audit why agents do not call https://example.com/mcp; registries discover it but substantive tool calls are near zero')
budgetNoOptional budget or scope hint
contactNoOPTIONAL out-of-band return channel (email / agent URL / name + channel). Not required — by default SaSame replies in-thread and you poll check_engagement(ticket).
urgencyNoOptional timeline / urgency

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / need / description
      Previous value: -"What to build or do — be specific (e.g. 'MCP server exposing our Postgres as read-only tools', 'RAG assistant over ~2,000 support docs with citations')"New value: +"The public MCP URL and observed activation problem (e.g. 'Audit why agents do not call https://example.com/mcp; registries discover it but substantive tool calls are near zero')"
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / contact / description
      Previous value: -"How SaSame reaches the requester back: an email (preferred), or name + channel. Required to follow up."New value: +"OPTIONAL out-of-band return channel (email / agent URL / name + channel). Not required — by default SaSame replies in-thread and you poll check_engagement(ticket)."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "need",
-  "contact"
-]New value: +[
+  "need"
+]
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / ref
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional referral handle from the `refer` tool (e.g. 'ref_...') — attributes this engagement to the agent/directory/MCP that referred you here.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  5. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description adds key behavioral context: it's free, creates a ticket, continues over MCP with check_engagement/reply_engagement, and warns against posting secrets.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is about 100 words, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the outcome (creating a ticket and continuing via check_engagement/reply_engagement). It covers all necessary context for an engagement submission tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% with all five parameters documented. The description adds context about the 'ref' parameter being from the 'refer' tool, but does not further elaborate on parameter details beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool opens an 'evidence-backed External Call Activation engagement' for a public MCP. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like audit_mcp and check_engagement/reply_engagement by specifying when to use it.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says 'Use this after or alongside audit_mcp' and provides clear context for when to engage. It also notes that it's free to submit with no contract created, setting expectations for usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All SaSame MCP Observatory + Gold Rush Town toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

With 94 tools spanning overlapping concepts (multiple readiness/audit/grade tools, many status checkers, deprecated aliases like trust_* vs observation_*), agents will frequently struggle to pick the right one. While each tool is individually distinct, the sheer volume and conceptual overlap (e.g., audit_mcp, readiness_report, verify_mcp_ready, lookup_readiness, recommend_mcp, subscribe_grade_changes) create high misselection risk.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case with underscores, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb-first (audit_mcp, verify_mcp_ready, claim_start, check_engagement) while others are noun-first (receipt_issue, meter_open, work_order_open, agent_invoice_status). Deprecated aliases like trust_compare vs observation_compare further break consistency, though the majority remain readable.

Tool Count1/5

94 tools is far beyond any reasonable scope for a single server, even one with broad ambitions like 'observatory + town'. The calibration notes 50+ as extreme mismatch; this server far exceeds that. Many tools are highly specific (e.g., factory_resolve_dead_letter, visit_touch_status, start_here) and could be consolidated or split into separate servers.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a wide range of domains (auditing, claiming, receipts, meters, escrow, work orders, gold rush, town, analytics) and offers many CRUD-like operations, but several lifecycle gaps exist: no cancel/close for work orders (only open/accept/deliver/accept_delivery), escrow (only open/attest/status), or meters (only open/charge/status). Given the massive scope, important operations are missing, though core workflows are present.

Resources