List your wallet's scratchpads: names, sizes, updated and expiry dates. The cheap 'do I have memory here?' call for the start of a session. ($0.001 per call, paid via x402)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pads | No | ||
| wallet | 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?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds pricing ($0.001 per call, paid via x402) and the notion of 'cheap' calls, which provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.
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 two concise sentences. The first sentence immediately states the purpose and output, and the second adds usage context and pricing. No extraneous information.
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 has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers all needed context: what the tool returns and when to use it. The mention of pricing and the 'cheap' nature completes the picture.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers the input. Baseline score is 4 as the description does not need to add parameter details.
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 that the tool lists wallet's scratchpads and specifies the returned fields: names, sizes, updated and expiry dates. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_scratchpad_name, which likely retrieves a single scratchpad. The verb 'List' and resource 'wallet's scratchpads' are specific and actionable.
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 advises using this tool 'for the start of a session' to check if memory exists, providing context-sensitive guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the use case is clearly implied.
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 distinct purposes, but the SEO-related tools (head_check, full_audit, site_audit, etc.) overlap in scope, potentially causing confusion despite clear descriptions.
Tool names consistently follow a get_/post_/delete_ verb pattern with descriptive noun phrases (e.g., get_seo_head_check, post_store_collection), with no mixing of naming conventions.
With 46 tools covering a wide breadth of domains (SEO, accessibility, music, crypto, linting, etc.), the count is excessive for a single server, feeling unfocused and heavy.
The tool set covers most core operations for each sub-domain, but minor gaps exist (e.g., missing update for datastore, limited music operations).
