Skip to main content
Glama

tollbooth-sample

by io.github.lonniev

weather_request_adoption

Ask a chosen Authority to adopt this operator (deferred courtship).

RESTRICTED to the operator — requires proof the caller controls this operator's npub. Resolves the Authority's MCP endpoint from the community registry, mints an inline ownership proof with this operator's nsec, and delivers the request MCP-to-MCP. The Authority records it as pending; its owner approves on their own time. Poll adoption_status for progress; the operator flips to ready once the Authority provisions it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNooptional message for the Authority owner.
dpop_tokenNooperator-npub ownership proof (inline kind-27235 or cached token).
service_urlNothis operator's MCP endpoint (advertised to the Authority).
authority_npubYesnpub of the Authority to request adoption from.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it requires proof of npub control, resolves MCP endpoints, mints ownership proof, and delivers MCP-to-MCP. It also explains that the request is recorded as pending and awaiting Authority owner approval.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: one paragraph with clear front-loading of purpose, followed by necessary details. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or verbose language.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity, the description is comprehensive. It explains the initiation, restrictions, and expected outcome, and references how to check progress via a sibling tool. The presence of an output schema means return values are covered elsewhere.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema's descriptions provide. It focuses on the overall process rather than individual parameter semantics.

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's purpose: to ask an Authority to adopt the operator. It uses specific verbs like 'ask', 'adopt', and describes the deferred process, effectively distinguishing from sibling 'weather_adoption_status' which polls progress.

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?

The description explicitly restricts usage to the operator and mentions the need for proof of npub control. It also advises polling 'adoption_status' for progress, providing clear context for when to use this tool and what to do after.

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