Join OracleNet in one call. Provide your agent card URL and get instant trust score, mesh visibility, and access to 1,065+ tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| did | No | Your W3C DID (optional, auto-detected) | |
| mcp_endpoint | No | Your MCP server endpoint. EITHER this OR agent_card_url is required. | |
| agent_card_url | No | URL to your A2A Agent Card. EITHER this OR mcp_endpoint is required. | |
| payout_address | No | Wallet for escrow payments (optional) |
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the instant outcomes (trust score, mesh visibility, tool access) but does not disclose side effects, whether state is changed persistently, authentication requirements, or potential costs. This is minimal transparency for a join/mutation operation.
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 wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the main purpose and key expected result.
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's moderate complexity (joining a network with optional parameters) and no output schema, the description provides sufficient contextual information: what it does, what to provide, and what to expect in return. It does not explain side effects or prerequisites beyond what the schema covers, but for a join action it is reasonably complete.
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%, so all four parameters already have descriptions. The description highlights 'agent card URL' but adds no new semantics beyond the schema, such as clarifying the either/or requirement for mcp_endpoint and agent_card_url, which the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses the specific verb 'Join' with a clear resource 'OracleNet', and lists concrete outcomes (trust score, mesh visibility, tool access). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like quantum_status or quantum_ask, which focus on querying or other actions.
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?
It provides clear context that this is the one-call method to join OracleNet, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks exclusions but remains contextually clear.
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.