OracleNet event feed — latest signals, changes, alerts. Poll this for updates if you cannot use webhooks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max events (default 20) | |
| event_type | No | Filter: heartbeat, new_capability, mesh_event, etc. |
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only polling operation and that it returns recent signals/changes/alerts, but it does not mention event ordering, pagination behavior, or any limitations. The word 'feed' and 'poll' strongly imply a safe read, but more detail (e.g., whether it's long-polling, how duplicates are handled) would improve transparency.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose and usage in 14 words. There is no redundant or filler content; every element earns its place.
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 description covers the basic purpose and usage, but with no output schema, it does not explain the structure of the returned event objects. It also lacks information about sorting, filtering behavior beyond event_type, or any rate limits. While the tool is simple, this missing context could require an agent to probe the API.
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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'limit' and 'event_type' already described in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 'OracleNet event feed — latest signals, changes, alerts' clearly identifies the tool's resource (event feed) and the kind of data it provides. The verb 'poll' in the usage line implies retrieval, making the purpose clear. It distinguishes from siblings by being the only tool with 'feed' semantics, though it does not name specific siblings.
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 phrase 'Poll this for updates if you cannot use webhooks' explicitly states when to use this tool (when webhooks are unavailable) and implies the alternative (webhooks). This provides clear usage context, though it does not list other alternative tools or precise exclusions.
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.
Several tools have unclear boundaries: quantum_ask and quantum_intent both serve as natural language 'front doors' with similar descriptions, and quantum_route and quantum_refer both find the best oracle for a task. This creates significant overlap that could cause agents to select the wrong tool.
Most tools follow a consistent quantum_<verb_or_noun> snake_case pattern (e.g., quantum_join, quantum_execute, quantum_settle). The single exception is neural_status, which breaks the prefix convention, but overall the naming is predictable and readable.
With 20 tools, the server sits in the heavy range (16-25). While the broad scope of OracleNet (intelligence, natural language, deals, reputation, subscriptions, scanning) somewhat justifies the count, it feels overpacked and could be streamlined by merging overlapping tools.
The tool surface covers core workflows: joining, querying status/nodes/reputation, routing, executing, dealing, settling, rating, and subscribing. However, lifecycle gaps exist—no unsubscribe, leave/delete node, deal cancellation, or dispute resolution—which can leave agents with dead ends.