Skip to main content
Glama

WhiteIntel — Ownership Intelligence

by dev.whiteintel

get_pricing

Read-onlyIdempotent

WhiteIntel's price list + the exact machine flow for buying access: one verified dossier (€29, one price, everything), subscriptions (Pro €99/mo, Scale €499/mo) and the metered API. Returns how_an_agent_buys — buy_dossier opens a Stripe Checkout, claim_dossier mints the token, get_dossier with that token returns the unlocked report. Static, no network — check it before recommending a purchase.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context: 'Static, no network' and explicitly states what it returns, including the machine flow. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by concrete pricing and flow details. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given zero parameters, no output schema, and a simple informational purpose, the description is complete. It covers what is returned, the pricing details, the step-by-step buying flow, and the static nature—all an agent needs to decide when and how to use this tool.

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?

No parameters exist, so the description carries no parameter burden. It does describe the return value's shape (how_an_agent_buys), which is more than necessary for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

Describes exactly what the tool does: provides WhiteIntel's price list and the buying flow. Includes concrete details (prices, subscription tiers) and names the return field how_an_agent_buys. Clearly distinct from sibling purchase/dossier tools.

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?

Explicitly states 'check it before recommending a purchase', giving a clear when-to-use directive. It also outlines the flow involving siblings (buy_dossier, claim_dossier, get_dossier), placing the tool in context. Does not explicitly exclude alternative price-related tools like get_payment_link, but the static informational nature is evident.

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

All WhiteIntel — Ownership Intelligence 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes (search, lookup, get details, graph traversal, coverage maps, payment). Some overlap exists between lookup_company and lookup_by_identifier (both resolve identifiers, though one is UK-specific), and between get_entity vs get_company_details, but descriptions clarify distinctions. find_similar and semantic_search both find similar entities but different mechanisms.

Naming Consistency3/5

Uses a mix of verb_noun and noun_phrases: buy_dossier, claim_dossier, check_offshore_exposure, find_similar, get_pricing, get_pulse, graph_neighbourhood, list_asset_coverage, lookup_by_identifier, search_entities, trace_ownership_path. While most use underscores and verbs like get/lookup/search/list, there are inconsistencies like 'graph_neighbourhood' (noun start) vs 'trace_ownership_path' (verb start). Overall readable but not perfectly consistent.

Tool Count4/5

23 tools is at the high end but justifiable for a comprehensive intelligence server covering search, lookup, graph, coverage, payments, and entity details. 'buy_dossier' is considered one of the tools and adds bulk but not excessive. It is appropriate for the scope.

Completeness4/5

Covers a wide range: search (search_entities, search_companies, semantic_search), identifier lookup (lookup_by_identifier, lookup_company), entity details (get_entity, get_company_details, get_financials), graph (graph_neighbourhood, graph_path, trace_ownership_path), coverage maps (list_jurisdictions, list_asset_coverage), sanctions (get_sanctions, check_offshore_exposure), plus payment flow (get_pricing, buy_dossier, claim_dossier, get_payment_link). Missing perhaps a 'get_relationships' separate tool but get_entity includes direct relationships. Also no explicit 'list_entities' but search covers it. Minor gaps like no bulk operations besides resolve.

Resources