Report a paid service or capability you needed but could not find in any registry -- the search returned nothing, or the results did not actually do what you needed. Describe the task you were trying to accomplish. Optionally include the price per call you would have been willing to pay. Reporting helps this capability get built.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| description | Yes | ||
| would_pay_usdc | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the action (reporting) and vague outcome ('helps this capability get built'), but lacks details on side effects, authentication, or what happens to the report. Not misleading, but could be more transparent.
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 concise and front-loaded, with three sentences that efficiently convey purpose, usage, and optional input. No wasted words.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient guidance for an agent to use it correctly. It covers what to describe and what to optionally include. Lacking a note on success feedback, but overall complete.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage per context, the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'Describe the task' for the 'description' field and 'Optionally include the price per call' for 'would_pay_usdc'. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type and title.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: reporting a missing paid service or capability after a search failure. It uses specific verbs and resource, and implicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'search_services' by describing the context of use.
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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'the search returned nothing, or the results did not actually do what you needed.' This provides clear usage context and distinguishes from the search sibling.
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.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one searches for existing services, the other reports missing services. No overlap in functionality.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: 'search_services' and 'report_missing_service', using snake_case throughout.
With only 2 tools, the server is very lean but covers the core needs of searching and reporting. Slightly thin, but reasonable for a minimal registry.
The tool surface lacks basic CRUD operations (e.g., list all services, add/update a service, delete). Agents can only search and report, which is incomplete for a full registry.