ddg_agent_status
Return DDG's machine-readable service/rail/MCP status document.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
DDG Agent Services
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states what is returned, not any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, authentication needs, rate limits).
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?
Single sentence, no filler. Every word earns its place.
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 zero parameters and presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. Lacks behavioral or usage context but adequate for a simple retrieval 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?
Input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds context about the returned document, which is sufficient. Baseline 4 for 0-param tools.
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 returns a machine-readable status document. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('DDG's machine-readable service/rail/MCP status document'), distinguishing it from siblings like ddg_order_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No context on prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, ranging from status checks to order management to payment processing. Despite the large number, descriptions make them easy to differentiate, with no obvious overlap.
Naming Consistency3/5
All tools share the 'ddg_' prefix, but naming patterns vary: some use verb_noun (e.g., ddg_list_models) while others use noun_noun (e.g., ddg_agent_status). This mix reduces consistency, though readability remains acceptable.
Tool Count4/5
With 25 tools, the count is at the high end but scales to cover diverse aspects of payable services (status, orders, payments, models, x402). Minor consolidation could be possible, but most tools earn their place.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers core workflows like order lifecycle, payment, and service discovery. Minor gaps (e.g., no cancellation or refund tools) exist but do not severely hinder typical agent interactions.