Subscribe to OracleNet events via webhook. Get notified when servers change, new capabilities appear, deals become available, or trust scores shift. Push-based — we come to you.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| did | No | Your DID (optional) | |
| action | No | register, unregister, or list | |
| events | No | Comma-separated event types or 'all' | |
| webhook_id | No | For unregister: webhook ID | |
| webhook_url | No | URL where we POST events. Required when action=register. |
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 behavioral burden. It discloses the push-based nature and the event types, but it omits the tool's multi-action behavior (register/unregister/list) and any side effects or prerequisites beyond the schema. The description adds some context but leaves gaps.
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?
Two sentences, zero fluff. The first sentence states purpose, the second explains benefits and mechanics. Well-structured and front-loaded.
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 adequately explains the core subscription concept but does not cover the tool's full action set (unregister/list) or the conditional requirement for webhook_url. Given the 5 parameters and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete for full invocation guidance.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing concrete event examples (servers change, new capabilities, deals, trust scores), which enriches the parameter semantics for 'events' beyond the schema's generic 'comma-separated event types or all'.
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 'Subscribe to OracleNet events via webhook', which is a specific verb+resource+method. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing push-based notifications, making its purpose unmistakable.
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?
While no explicit alternatives are named, the phrase 'Push-based — we come to you' implies this tool is for receiving notifications rather than polling. This gives the agent a clear sense of when to use it, though it lacks explicit 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.