Show a representative sample of a services output so you can judge quality before paying. Free; canned sample, not a live run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| service | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
No annotations exist, but the description discloses it's free, uses a canned sample, and is not a live run. It doesn't cover authentication or side effects, but for a preview tool, these are less critical.
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?
Two concise sentences (27 words) are front-loaded with the main purpose. No superfluous content.
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?
With one parameter and an output schema, the description covers core purpose, cost, and sample nature. It doesn't detail parameter format, but the tool is simple enough that completeness is adequate.
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 sole parameter 'service' has no schema description (0% coverage) and the description does not explain what values it accepts. The agent lacks guidance on valid inputs.
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 states the tool shows 'a representative sample of a services output' for 'judge quality before paying', distinguishing it from siblings like run_trial (live trial) and service_info (information). It also clarifies it's free and canned.
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 implies using before paying and contrasts with 'not a live run', guiding when to use. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling list provides context for 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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: listing services, getting details, previewing output, running a trial, generating an SDK snippet, and obtaining payment instructions. No overlap.
Most names follow a verb_noun pattern (get_*, list_*, run_trial), but 'preview' is a standalone verb and 'service_info' is noun_noun, causing minor inconsistency.
6 tools is appropriate for a service offering paid developer tools with free trials, previews, and payment guidance. Each tool earns its place.
The tool set covers the full workflow: discovery (list_services, service_info), evaluation (preview, run_trial), integration (get_instant_sdk_snippet), and payment guidance (get_payment_guide). No obvious gaps.