coverage_status
Inspect persistent autonomous observation continuity and source failures
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
ARAKEL Machine Evidence Network
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Inspect' signals a read-only operation and the description names the dimensions inspected (continuity and source failures), but it does not disclose output format, failure semantics, or any other behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded with the action verb, though the jargon-heavy phrase 'persistent autonomous observation continuity' could be clearer.
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 zero-parameter tool, the description provides a reasonable starting point, but it omits any explanation of return values or how this status differs from sibling tools. Given no output schema and no annotations, a bit more context about expected results would make it more complete.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully captures parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but none is needed.
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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and names the subject matter: persistent autonomous observation continuity and source failures. It is clear about what the tool covers, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like 'coverage' or 'discovery_status'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus coverage_status's siblings. The description names no alternatives, conditions, or exclusions, leaving an agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
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
B3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
Several tools have heavily overlapping roles: 'quote' and 'machine_quote' both appear to offer free preflight quotes and x402 pricing, while 'coverage' and 'coverage_status' both relate to observation/watch coverage. 'catalog' and 'machine_sources' also blur the line between listing products and listing source adapters. An agent would likely struggle to pick the correct tool without deeper context.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tool names use lowercase snake_case and mostly follow a noun/status pattern. The 'machine_' prefix creates a recognizable subgroup, and quote-related names are clearly grouped. Minor inconsistency exists because some names are action-oriented (batch_quote, catalog) while others are status-oriented (coverage_status, discovery_status), but the overall style is coherent.
Tool Count5/5
Ten tools is a reasonable, well-scoped count for a specialized evidence/quote/status service. Each tool addresses a distinct operational concern: quotes, coverage, status, catalog, sources, and telemetry. The count does not feel inflated or too thin.
Completeness2/5
The server covers preflight quoting, coverage checks, catalog listing, status, sources, and sales telemetry, but conspicuously lacks any tool for purchasing, paying, or retrieving completed evidence/proofs. The quote descriptions repeatedly reference x402 payment and payable batches, yet there is no obvious order or fulfillment endpoint. This creates a dead end for agents trying to complete a transaction.