demand_reportFREE, no payment. The aggregate of what agents have told us they are looking for, most-requested first, with the categories nothing available yet serves.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Window in days, default 30, max 90. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / days / examplesAdded value: +[
+ "30"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations to provide behavioral hints, and the description lacks any details about side effects, permissions, read-only nature, or whether data is modified. The only extra is a cost note, which is not a behavioral trait. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's impact.
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 a single rambling sentence that mixes unrelated info ('FREE, no payment') with the main purpose and ends in an unclear phrase. It is not well-structured or concise, and important elements are buried or unclear.
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?
The tool appears simple but lacks essential context: no output format, no explanation of how it differs from sibling tools, and the cost hint is not elaborated. An agent would struggle to know what to expect or when to use it, making the description incomplete for decision-making.
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 input schema fully defines the 'days' parameter with a clear description, default, and max value (coverage 100%). The tool description does not add further semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies, with no additional insights provided.
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 states the tool provides an aggregate of agent requests, sorted by frequency, and the title reinforces this. However, the phrasing is awkward and includes a garbled clause ('with the categories nothing available yet serves') that detracts from clarity. It does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools, but the core action is discernible.
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?
The description only mentions 'FREE, no payment,' which hints at a cost benefit but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like discover_feeds or read_feed. There is no guidance on conditions or scenarios for use, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness.
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.
The feed tools are clearly separated: discover_feeds locates feed URLs while read_feed consumes them. demand_report and request_data both involve data needs, but one is aggregate market demand while the other is an individual availability query, so the descriptions prevent serious confusion.
Three tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern: discover_feeds, read_feed, request_data. demand_report reads more like a noun compound than a verb_noun action, which is a minor deviation rather than a systemic inconsistency.
Four tools is a well-scoped set for a feed reader and data-request utility. Each tool serves a distinct purpose without redundancy, and the count feels appropriate for the server's apparent focus.
The core workflow of discovering feeds, reading them, and querying data availability is covered. Polling is supported via the 'since' parameter, but there is no subscription-management or explicit feed-validation tool, which are minor gaps rather than blockers.