View account info, pricing, entitlements, or list keys. Actions: "status" (default) → tier, quota, usage from /me/entitlements "pricing" → public pricing tiers (no auth required) "keys" → list user's API keys with per-key usage "usage" → alias for "keys" (per-key usage is shown there)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| apiKey | Yes |
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 no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that 'pricing' requires no auth, that 'keys' returns per-key usage, and that 'usage' is an alias. This is useful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it omits error handling or apiKey requirements.
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 front-loaded with a one-line summary and uses a clear bulleted list for actions. No redundant information or padding.
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?
The tool has 2 required params, no output schema, and no annotations. The description thoroughly explains each action's result and auth requirements, but misses context on apiKey acquisition and when to prefer this tool over specialized siblings.
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 0%, and the description adds meaning for the 'action' parameter by enumerating valid values and their meanings. However, the required 'apiKey' parameter is entirely unexplained, leaving a significant gap.
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 opens with 'View account info, pricing, entitlements, or list keys' followed by a detailed action list, making the tool's purpose explicit and distinguishing it from specialized siblings like listApiKeys and pricing.
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 lists actions but does not explain when to choose this aggregate tool over dedicated siblings (e.g., listApiKeys, getKeyUsage, myEntitlements). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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.
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes: parse, convert, estimate, formats, auth, auth-poll, account, upload, and feedback. The main ambiguity is that editDocument with an empty delta array behaves like a parse, overlapping with mcpParse.
Seven tools share a useful mcp prefix with PascalCase, but editDocument and getUploadUrl are camelCase and submit_feedback is snake_case. The casing and verb-style inconsistencies make the tool set feel less coherent than its overall design suggests.
Ten tools is a well-scoped size for this domain: authentication, account, upload, formatting, estimation, parsing, editing, conversion, and feedback are each represented. No tool feels redundant or like filler.
The surface covers the key parse workflow: get an API key, upload, estimate, parse, edit, convert, and check supported formats. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit API-key revoke action and some output/workflow steps being delegated to the SDK/CLI.
