Read the privacy-safe Visit Touch funnel. Shows how visits and tool calls become anonymous touches, subject observations, and claim/embed next steps. Optional url filters to one subject.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Optional public MCP endpoint URL to filter by |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms 'Read' and 'privacy-safe'. This consistency is good, but the description adds no new behavioral traits beyond the funnel context. No mention of auth needs, rate limits, or what happens with missing data.
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?
Two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose: 'Read the privacy-safe Visit Touch funnel.' The second adds details on what it shows and filtering. No wasted words.
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?
Given only 1 optional parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential behavior (what the funnel shows, optional filtering). It could mention if results are paginated or return format, but not strictly necessary for this simple tool.
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?
There is one optional 'url' parameter with schema description coverage 100%. The description adds the meaning 'filters to one subject', which is valuable extra context beyond the schema's 'Optional public MCP endpoint URL'.
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 'Read the privacy-safe Visit Touch funnel' with a specific verb and resource. It explains what the funnel shows (visits, tool calls become touches, etc.), distinguishing it from other sibling tools like analytics_next_steps or audit_mcp, though some jargon may obscure clarity.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only contextual hint is 'Optional url filters to one subject', but there is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer. Sibling tools include many analytics and status tools, so the lack of differentiation is a gap.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.