Skip to main content
Glama

Agent Reputation

by io.github.SamyTouri

Buy an independent pre-purchase evidence brief (0.50 USDC)

prepurchase_brief
Read-only

Read the terms of the only paid product: a fixed-scope manual pre-purchase evidence brief about ONE agent you are considering buying from, for 0.50 USDC over x402. Returns what you get, the exact fields to send, the payment flow, and whether the offer is currently active with its authoritative network and amount. This tool never takes payment and never places an order — it describes the offer; you order by POSTing to the returned URL. Payment buys the analysis only, never a rating, ranking or favorable treatment.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds significant context: the tool is informational only, does not execute payment or orders, and returns critical details like payment flow and offer activity. It also clarifies the scope ('fixed-scope manual pre-purchase evidence brief about ONE agent'). No contradictions.

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 concise yet comprehensive: two sentences covering purpose, pricing, output, and behavioral scope. Every sentence adds value, with critical caveats front-loaded. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It explains the payment flow and the tool's non-transactional nature. However, it could be slightly more specific about the exact fields returned, though the user is told they will receive 'the exact fields to send'.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not add parameter information (none needed), but it references the returned fields, which is relevant to the tool's output.

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 the tool's purpose: to read the terms of a paid pre-purchase evidence brief for one agent. It specifies the cost (0.50 USDC) and what returns (fields, payment flow, active status). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_agent' or 'get_reputation', which are free.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: to read terms before purchasing, and when not to use it: 'never takes payment and never places an order', directing the agent to POST to the returned URL for ordering. It provides clear context on the tool's role in a multi-step process.

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

All Agent Reputation 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action—complaints, ratings, contacts, registration, stats, etc. Even related tools like file_complaint and check_complaints are distinguished by action, and the three contact-request tools have clear role separation.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (check_, claim_, file_, give_, list_, register_, request_, respond_, submit_, talk_to_), but three informational tools—complaint_bureau, hub_stats, prepurchase_brief—use noun phrases instead. This is a minor deviation from an otherwise consistent convention.

Tool Count5/5

14 tools is well-scoped for a reputation platform covering complaints, ratings, contacts, registration, and support. Each tool earns its place, and none feel redundant or excessive.

Completeness2/5

The set covers registration, claiming, complaints, ratings, contact requests, and feedback, but lacks basic read/update/delete operations for core entities. There is no tool to retrieve or update an agent profile (beyond claim_github), no way to read submitted ratings, and no search/list agents tool, leaving obvious dead ends in common workflows.

Resources