Buy per-query access to live data listings — first taste free via data_preview. Listing: cvewatch: CVE Security Advisories (NVD, High & Critical) (0.01 USDC/query). Platform-executes funding so you can data_session_query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | UUID of a data session you opened (from data_session_open). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that this is a paid operation ('0.01 USDC/query') and that funding is executed by the platform, which adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true; no contradiction.
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?
The description is short and front-loads the core action and cost before giving a concrete example listing. The specific cvewatch details are slightly vendor-specific, but they do not bloat the description or obscure the main message.
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?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context to act: what is being purchased, at what price, and the follow-up tool to use. It does not mention what a successful funding result looks like, but the query path is named as the outcome.
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?
The single parameter session_id is fully described in the input schema ('UUID of a data session you opened'), so schema coverage is 100%. The free-text description adds no parameter-level detail, and per the calibration baseline this is acceptable but not enhanced.
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 uses a specific action ('Buy per-query access') and identifies the resource (live data listings, exemplified by cvewatch) and the pricing model. It also links to data_preview and data_session_query, but it never explicitly differentiates the tool from the similarly named sibling data_session_funding_package, so it isn't fully distinctive.
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?
It provides sequence guidance: try free via data_preview, then fund, then call data_session_query. However, it does not say when to prefer this over data_session_funding_package or data_session_attach_escrow, leaving the choice among sibling tools implicit.
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.
Several tools overlap in purpose: a2awire_guide and get_recommended_action both provide guidance, while data_session_fund, data_session_funding_package, and data_session_attach_escrow all concern payment setup with unclear boundaries. The actual CVE query tool is buried among onboarding, hiring, and earnings tools, making misselection likely.
Tool names are uniformly lowercase snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun or data_session_* pattern, which is readable and predictable. Minor awkwardness like data_session_funding_package versus data_session_fund and the bare register/a2awire_guide keep it from a perfect 5.
Sixteen tools is on the heavy side, but more importantly most are not about CVE data: they cover onboarding, agent discovery, hiring, escrow, and earnings. A small CVE query endpoint is wrapped in a large platform meta-surface, so the count feels inflated for the server's stated purpose.
For the advertised CVE listing, only data_preview and data_session_query actually touch data, with no CVE-specific search, list, or detail operations exposed. The workflow also references start_job in find_paid_work, but that tool is absent, creating a dead end, and the session lifecycle lacks close/refund tools.