intentfence_us_cpiPaid official U.S. CPI and core CPI data ($0.001 USDC on Base), retrieved from the Bureau of Labor Statistics with a six-hour edge cache and returned with an ES256 provenance receipt. Optionally request a YYYY-MM period.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| month | No | Optional CPI month in YYYY-MM. Omit for the latest complete headline/core period. |
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?
Annotations mark the tool as readOnly=true and destructive=false. The description adds behavioral info: it costs $0.001 USDC, has a six-hour cache, and returns a provenance receipt. No contradiction.
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 efficiently convey cost, source, cache behavior, receipt format, and optional parameter. Front-loaded and no filler.
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 no output schema, the description implies return of CPI data and a receipt but could explicitly state response structure. The cost and cache detail add value, but a clear statement of what the response contains (e.g., CPI values, timestamps) is missing.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'month', with a clear pattern and description. The description merely restates 'Optionally request a YYYY-MM period', adding no new semantics beyond the schema.
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 provides official U.S. CPI data, retrieval source, cost, and provenance. It is distinct from all sibling tools which deal with risk, authorization, and assessments.
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 explains the optional month parameter and implies usage for CPI data. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among siblings, which are unrelated anyway.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose, from risk scanning to authorization, preflight checks, and specific data retrieval. Descriptions are detailed and non-overlapping.
All tools follow a consistent 'intentfence_<descriptive_name>' pattern with snake_case, making them predictable and easy to distinguish.
10 tools is well-scoped for a security firewall server, covering a range of free and paid services without being overwhelming or too sparse.
The set covers assessment, authorization, and data retrieval, but lacks tools for managing the firewall configuration itself (e.g., allowlist CRUD), leaving some gaps in lifecycle coverage.