Resolve one merchant, evaluate sourced intent constraints, select a safe action, state approval, and return attribution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timing | No | ||
| client_id | No | ||
| geography | No | ||
| action_type | No | ||
| merchant_url | Yes | ||
| item_or_service | No | ||
| allowed_authority | No | ||
| max_stale_seconds | No | ||
| maximum_price_amount | No | ||
| maximum_price_currency | No | ||
| human_confirmation_available | No |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds some context about evaluating 'sourced intent constraints' and selecting a 'safe action', but it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or output characteristics beyond those annotations.
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 sentence with no filler and is front-loaded with action verbs. However, terms like 'sourced intent constraints' and 'attribution' are cryptic and unexplained, slightly reducing clarity, but the compact structure is still efficient.
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 11 parameters, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, a one-sentence overview is insufficient. The description gives a high-level process but omits return format, parameter semantics, and usage context, making it inadequate for reliable tool invocation.
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 input schema has 11 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, yet the description mentions none of them by name. Vague terms like 'intent constraints' and 'safe action' offer no concrete mapping to fields like action_type, allowed_authority, or max_stale_seconds, leaving the agent unable to infer parameter semantics.
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 names a specific multi-step process: resolve a merchant, evaluate intent constraints, select a safe action, state approval, and return attribution. This is more specific than a vague verb and helps distinguish the tool from siblings like get_safe_actions or resolve_merchant, though 'attribution' is ambiguous.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as resolve_merchant or get_safe_actions. The description implies a pre-action workflow but does not state explicit use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
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.
Clear purpose separation exists among query/search/compare tools, but inspect_merchant is a direct alias for refresh_merchant, and check_merchant, resolve_merchant, and preflight all involve resolving merchant context in ways that could cause misselection. The overlapping inspection/resolution family makes boundaries unclear despite distinct descriptions.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (search_merchants, get_safe_actions, refresh_merchant), but preflight is a single verb with no object and inspect_merchant/refresh_merchant are inconsistent synonyms for the same operation. Otherwise naming is predictable.
Nine tools is within the typical well-scoped range and covers search, inspection, comparison, and action-selection concerns. However, inspect_merchant duplicates refresh_merchant, so the effective tool count is inflated by one redundant alias.
The server covers the core merchant-context lifecycle: cached resolution, paid refresh, search, comparison, safe-action retrieval, and full preflight. Minor gaps exist in documenting what check_merchant adds beyond resolve_merchant, and no explicit execution tool is included, though action execution may be outside scope.
