List recent Bitcoin notarization records.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum records to return (default 20). | |
| status | No | Optional filter (e.g., 'submitted', 'confirmed'). |
| 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 are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List recent...' which implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, how records are ordered, or what 'recent' means.
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 one concise sentence with no filler words and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately short for a simple list tool, though it omits useful context that could justify a higher completeness score.
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 an output schema present and both optional parameters documented in the schema, the description is minimally viable for calling the tool. However, the lack of annotations and absence of any usage guidance leave gaps around expected behavior and when this tool should be selected.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'limit' and 'status' already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the notion of 'recent,' so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists recent Bitcoin notarization records. The 'list' verb differentiates it from related tools like roastify_get_notarization_proof and roastify_notarize_ledger, though it does not name them or elaborate on scope.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as retrieving a single proof or creating a notarization. There are no explicit usage conditions 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.
Most tools target clearly distinct resources—patron balances vs. operator Authority balances, design text vs. full design fetches, operator vs. patron credentials—and the verbose descriptions carefully separate request/receive flows. A few pairs could still be confused at a glance, such as service_status/session_status, forget_coupon/delete_coupon, and get_design_text/fetch_design.
All tools share the roastify_ snake_case prefix and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern like list_, get_, update_, delete_, and create. However, several noun-only names (service_status, session_status, account_statement, oracle_about) and the inconsistent forget_ vs. delete_ distinction for credential/coupon removal keep it from being fully consistent.
69 tools is an extreme count for a single MCP surface and far exceeds the 25+ threshold. Even though the tools span many subdomains—design, payments, coupons, credentials, pricing, notarization, oracle—the sheer number will be heavy on agent context and selection accuracy.
Core workflows are largely covered: design storage/editing, coupon lifecycle, credential vaults, credit purchasing, pricing models, notarization, and the oracle all have reasonable read/write surfaces. However, session_status explicitly tells not_registered operators to call register_operator, which does not exist in the tool set, and design editing lacks any delete-element operation, leaving notable dead ends.