market_context_summary
Read-only
Return public aggregate MCP Market Context. Aggregate measurement context only; not a recommendation.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
SaSame MCP Observatory + Gold Rush Town
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Changed1 schema field changed
- changed
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
- Added
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds that it is 'not a recommendation,' which is relevant behavioral context. However, it does not disclose other traits like data freshness, caching, or what 'public aggregate' means in terms of data scope.
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 a single sentence with a brief clarifying clause. Every word is necessary and no extraneous information is included. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and a key limitation (not a recommendation). However, it does not describe the output format or typical usage context, which would help an agent understand the expected return value for 'Market Context'.
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?
There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description's mention of 'public aggregate' aligns with the absence of parameters, implying no user-specific filtering. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not contradict this.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Return) and the resource (public aggregate MCP Market Context). It adds a clarifying statement that it is not a recommendation, which helps distinguish from some similar tools, but could be more specific about what 'Market Context' includes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for aggregate measurements rather than recommendations via the statement 'Aggregate measurement context only; not a recommendation.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for recommendations or other use cases, leaving the agent to infer from sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
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.