Skip to main content
Glama

SaSame MCP Observatory + Gold Rush Town

by online.sasame

refer

Register an attribution handle for introductions to SaSame. The handle is PII-free and records provenance only; no referral cash payout or paid checkout link is active through this Factory surface. Do NOT paste secrets/keys here.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoOptional: who/what you're referring, or how to reach you for credit (email/channel).
referrerYesWho is referring — your directory/agent/MCP name or domain (e.g. 'agent-tools.cloud', 'my-router-agent'). Used to mint your stable handle.

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. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations (which set destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds that the handle is PII-free, records provenance only, and has no referral cash payout. This clarifies the non-destructive, non-monetary nature, providing useful context missing from structured fields.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a caution, all front-loaded. Every sentence adds value (purpose, constraints, warning) with no wasted words.

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?

The description lacks any mention of return values or success indicators, which is important for a registration tool. It also does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like factory_principal_register, leaving the agent to infer output structure.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description restates the referrer's purpose ('used to mint your stable handle') but does not add new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it 'Register[s] an attribution handle for introductions to SaSame,' specifying the verb (register) and resource (attribution handle for introductions). It distinguishes from siblings by clarifying the handle is PII-free and records provenance only, with no cash payout.

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 provides a caution ('Do NOT paste secrets/keys here') and states when not to use (no cash payout), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like factory_principal_register or other referral-related tools.

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