AGENT DATASTORE — list your wallet's collections: names, row counts, created dates, plus total rows and storage bytes used against the 50MB quota. ($0.001 per call, paid via x402)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wallet | No | ||
| total_rows | No | ||
| collections | No | ||
| storage_bytes | 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 provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds important behavioral context: the call costs $0.001 (paid via x402) and references the 50MB quota. This enhances transparency beyond annotations.
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 extremely concise: one main sentence plus a parenthetical cost note. It is front-loaded with the 'AGENT DATASTORE' label and contains no redundant 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 no input parameters, an existing output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description fully explains what the tool returns (collections list with counts and quota usage) and the cost model. No gaps are present.
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?
There are no parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable. Schema description coverage is 100%. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description does not need to add parameter meaning.
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 it lists wallet collections with specific fields (names, row counts, created dates, total rows, storage bytes), and mentions the 50MB quota. 'AGENT DATASTORE' labels the context. It distinguishes from siblings like get_store_collection by being the aggregate overview.
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 implies usage for getting a data store overview but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like get_store_collection. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.
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).
