Free, no wallet. What the archive holds, what each paid tool costs, and how payment works.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that the tool is free and requires no wallet, and it describes the informational content, but it does not explicitly confirm that the tool is read-only or has no side effects. For a zero-parameter catalog tool, this is largely sufficient but not fully transparent.
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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the most important behavioral fact ('Free, no wallet') and then concisely enumerates what the catalog contains.
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?
Given that this is a zero-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It explains the informational categories and the cost/payment angle, but it does not mention how this tool relates to siblings like contents or search, which would strengthen completeness.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The description focuses on the tool’s purpose and content, which is appropriate and complete given the empty input schema.
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 clearly identifies the tool as a catalog of archive holdings, paid-tool costs, and payment mechanics. It conveys the resource being described, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'show' and does not differentiate itself from the sibling 'contents' tool.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as contents, search, or research. It implies a browsing/informational use case through the 'catalog' wording, but there is no explicit context for selection or exclusion.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct jobs: discovery (catalog, contents, sample), retrieval (archive, search, research), and analysis (precheck, audit, brief). The only real overlap is intentional—precheck is a subset of audit—and archive/search/sample differ in scope and selection.
All tool names are single lowercase words, which gives the set a consistent, predictable feel. They do not follow a verb_noun pattern, and some are nouns while others read as verbs, but the uniform style prevents confusion.
Nine tools is well-scoped for an archive-plus-analysis server. Each tool has a distinct role, and the count supports free discovery, paid access, and specialized risk-analysis features without feeling padded.
The surface covers the core journey well: browse contents, sample free cases, search by symptom, purchase full access, and run pre-flight or audit-style checks. A minor gap is the lack of a per-case purchase or tag-browsing tool, but the full archive makes those workarounds unnecessary.