Skip to main content
Glama

TESSA Marketing & Technology

by tech.tessa

get_services

Returns TESSA's full service catalog (SEO, paid media, web/app development, AI agent readiness, accessibility, and more). Each service includes its live per-service A2A card URL (agent_card) and JSON-RPC endpoint (a2a_endpoint), so you can discover a service here and then talk to its dedicated A2A agent. Optional filters: category_slug: marketing | web-development | ai-experiences service_slug: filter to one specific service

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
service_slugNo
category_slugNo

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses what the tool returns: the full catalog, per-service agent_card, a2a_endpoint, and optional filters. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or error conditions, but with no annotations, it still provides solid behavioral context.

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 three sentences and front-loads the core purpose, followed by output details and filters. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary restatement.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Even with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential output fields and filter options. It could mention response format or potential error cases, but for a catalog-listing tool it provides sufficient 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It provides explicit allowed values for category_slug and explains service_slug as filtering to one service, adding meaningful guidance beyond the raw 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 it returns TESSA's full service catalog and lists included categories. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_case_studies and get_firm_profile by emphasizing unique A2A card URLs and endpoints.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explains that the tool is for discovering services and then talking to their dedicated A2A agents, which is a clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when-not-to-use, but the intended workflow is evident.

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

All TESSA Marketing & Technology 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose. The get_* tools retrieve different data types (services, firm profiles, case studies, audit offerings), the request_* tools target different actions (introduction, quote, strategy session), and assess_ai_readiness and claim_listing are unique. No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are all snake_case and follow a verb_noun structure, but the verbs vary (assess, claim, find, get, request) rather than using a single consistent pattern. The get_ and request_ subgroups are internally consistent, so the naming is readable and predictable despite the variety.

Tool Count5/5

With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped. Each tool serves a clear function in the marketing/directory domain: discovery (find, get), engagement (request, claim), and assessment (assess, get_wcag_audit). The count is neither sparse nor overwhelming.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the core workflows: searching the directory, retrieving firm details and services, requesting intros/quotes/sessions, claiming listings, and checking AI readiness. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to update a listing or access the compliance registry directly), but these are not likely to cause agent failures.

Resources