List the data-source endpoints feeding the wire, with provider, signal type, country, cadence, and license. Returns one SRC line per source.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| signal_type | No | Filter by signal type, e.g. climate, security, health. Omit for all sources. |
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?
With annotations already covering readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, the description adds a behavioral guarantee: exactly one SRC line is returned per source, along with the source fields. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a useful expectation about the result format.
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?
Two sentences capture the action, the resource, the field set, and the return shape. There is no extraneous text, and the core behavior is front-loaded before any context about 'the wire' or 'SRC lines'.
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?
For a read-only listing tool with 0 required parameters and only one optional filter, the description is complete enough to call correctly. The only potential gap is that 'SRC line' and 'feeding the wire' are domain-specific and unexpanded, but plausible enough not to block correct invocation.
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?
The schema covers 100% of the parameter docs, including the signal_type filter, examples, and omit-all-sources behavior. The description's mention of signal_type is only as an output field, so it adds no meaningful semantic layer for the input schema beyond what is already there.
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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('List the data-source endpoints') and enumerates the distinguishing fields: provider, signal type, country, cadence, and license. This clearly separates it from sibling tools such as get_signal or list_facets, which concern signal content and facets rather than source metadata.
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 makes it clear that this tool is for retrieving overall metadata about source endpoints, and it includes a note on the optional signal-type filter. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use conditions, but the resource scope and output fields convey enough context for an agent to match an intent to this tool.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: the two facet-listing tools are explicitly differentiated as quick manifest vs exhaustive listing, and search_signals vs scope_signals is cleanly split between lexical search and facet filtering. The billing/payment tools also form a clear lifecycle with no overlapping responsibilities.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_* and list_* for reads, and action verbs like register_agent, open_payment, settle_payment, scope_signals, search_signals for operations. No mixed casing or inconsistent verb styles.
15 tools is at the upper edge of the well-scoped range but each tool earns its place: five cover data retrieval, four cover discovery/metadata, and five cover identity/billing. No redundant or filler tools.
The surface covers the full workflow for the stated domain: discover vocabulary, search/scope the live wire, retrieve individual signals and related signals, compute fused products, register an identity, and purchase/activate a plan. The only apparent omissions, such as cancellation, are outside the described prepaid self-service flow.