Skip to main content
Glama

tollbooth-sample

by io.github.lonniev

weather_report_issue

File a field report about this service as a GitHub issue on the operator's repo.

Found a tool's metadata or response wrong or confusing? Report it where the tool lives. The author of record is your npub — no npub / no proof, no issue — and it is stamped into the issue so the report is attributed to you, not the operator. Costs a small fee (a free write to an issue tracker would be abused). The report is PUBLIC and goes to the maintainers' normal triage; nothing is verified here.

Returns the filed issue's repo, number, and url. If this operator has not enabled field reports, returns an "issue reporting not configured" situation and you are not charged.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesThe details — which tool, what was wrong, what you expected.
npubYesYour Nostr public key (npub1...); the report's author of record.
titleYesOne-line summary of the problem.
tool_nameNoOptional: the specific tool the report is about (e.g. "schwab_get_option_chain").
dpop_tokenYesRaw JSON of a kind-27235 Nostr event signed by npub — not base64, not NIP-98 'Authorization: Nostr <b64>' framing. Its `u` tag must hold THIS tool's exact name (from tools/list), not the endpoint URL; content:"", created_at within 60s of now, and a random `nonce` tag recommended. Or a cached dpop_token phrase.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / dpop_token / description
      Previous value: -"A kind-27235 Nostr event signed by npub for this tool."New value: +"Raw JSON of a kind-27235 Nostr event signed by npub —\nnot base64, not NIP-98 'Authorization: Nostr <b64>' framing. Its\n`u` tag must hold THIS tool's exact name (from tools/list), not\nthe endpoint URL; content:\"\", created_at within 60s of now, and a\nrandom `nonce` tag recommended. Or a cached dpop_token phrase."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses behavioral traits: costs a small fee, requires npub for attribution, report is public and not verified, and returns either issue details or an unconfigured situation. This is thorough for a reporting tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is well-structured: starts with purpose, then details prerequisites, costs, and returns. Every sentence adds value. Slightly longer than necessary but remains clear. Appropriate for a non-trivial tool with authentication and cost implications.

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 no annotations but presence of output schema (context signal says true), description covers prerequisites, cost, attribution, public nature, failure mode, and return information. For a reporting tool with 5 parameters, it provides sufficient guidance for safe use.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% (all 5 parameters described in schema). Description adds meaning beyond schema: npub is 'author of record', dpop_token requires specific format and constraints (kind-27235, u tag with tool name, 60s validity), title and body are summarized, tool_name is optional. This additional context helps the agent use parameters correctly.

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?

Description clearly states the tool files a field report as a GitHub issue about tool metadata or responses. It uses specific verbs ('File a field report') and identifies the resource ('GitHub issue on the operator's repo'). No sibling tool offers similar functionality, ensuring no confusion.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Description explicitly states when to use: when tool metadata or response is wrong/confusing. It explains costs, public nature, and attribution via npub. Also covers failure mode (unconfigured, no charge). Lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but siblings are unrelated, so the guidance is clear.

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

All tollbooth-sample 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, and the few similar pairs (e.g., check_balance vs check_authority_balance, account_statement vs account_statement_infographic) are well-differentiated by their descriptions. However, some overlapping concepts like forget_credentials vs delete_patron_credential/delete_operator_credential could still cause misselection without careful reading.

Naming Consistency2/5

All tools share the misleading 'weather_' prefix, which does not reflect their actual domain (billing, credentials, coupons, notarization). Naming patterns are inconsistent, mixing verb_noun (check_balance, list_coupons) with noun-ish names (account_statement, current, forecast) and varied verbs (get, list, check, request, receive, update, delete, forget, mint, redeem, etc.).

Tool Count1/5

With 52 tools, this is an extremely large surface for a sample server. Even though the domain is broad, this count far exceeds the typical well-scoped MCP server and creates unnecessary complexity for agents to navigate.

Completeness4/5

The tollbooth/billing domain is well-covered: credit purchasing, coupons, credentials, proofs, pricing models, notarization, and operator/patron status. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no single-coupon getter, no direct patron list), but core workflows have no dead ends. The weather aspect is thin with only three tools, but that seems intentional as an example paid service.

Resources