Skip to main content
Glama

tollbooth-sample

by io.github.lonniev

weather_update_operator_credential

Add or update a single operator secret field.

Merges into the operator's stored credentials without touching the others — the field-level counterpart to re-delivering the whole bundle over Secure Courier. Use it to rotate one secret (a reissued btcpay_api_key, say) without restating the six you did not change, where any field omitted from a courier reply is destroyed.

The value is never echoed back. RESTRICTED to the operator — requires proof (nsec-signed kind-27235 or a cached dpop_token phrase); patron proofs are rejected.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldYesThe operator credential field to set. Must be declared in the operator's credential template.
valueYesThe value to store.
dpop_tokenYesOperator proof for this tool.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully owns behavioral disclosure. It reveals the merge behavior ('without touching the others'), side-effect context (courier reply destroys omitted fields), the never-echoed value, and authentication requirements (nsec-signed kind-27235 or cached dpop_token phrase). No contradictions exist.

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 composed of three short paragraphs, each with a distinct purpose: purpose, merge/contrast logic, and auth/restriction context. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy or filler, matching the tool's complexity.

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 mutating nature, restricted access, and the presence of an output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers the merge semantics, destruction caveat of alternatives, value privacy, and authentication requirements, leaving no critical contextual gaps.

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 description coverage is 100% for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example field name ('btcpay_api_key') and overall purpose, but does not need to compensate for schema gaps. It does not provide additional per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add or update a single operator secret field.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like weather_update_patron_credential and weather_get_patron_credential_fields by emphasizing 'operator' and the field-level scope, reinforced by the analogy 'field-level counterpart to re-delivering the whole bundle.'

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to use: 'rotate one secret' without restating unchanged fields, contrasting with courier bundle delivery. It also gives exclusion criteria: 'RESTRICTED to the operator' and 'patron proofs are rejected,' preventing misuse by non-operators.

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