Location brief (bundle) — One call for a US place — pass an address OR lat+lon: normalized address + county/state + current conditions + active weather alerts. JSON. Price: $0.02 USDC (Base, via x402).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | No | optional latitude | |
| lon | No | optional longitude | |
| address | Yes | US address (or use lat+lon) |
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 readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive. Description adds valuable context: JSON output, USD C pricing via x402, US-only scope, and the bundled response contents. It doesn't cover rate limits or auth, but annotations lower that burden.
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?
One dense, front-loaded sentence conveys purpose, inputs, output components, format, and price. No filler or repeated schema content.
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?
For a tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains return categories, input alternatives, scope, JSON format, and price. The address-required conflict and lack of explicit sibling guidance are the main gaps.
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 a 3 baseline would normally apply, but the description's 'address OR lat+lon' claim conflicts with the schema, which requires address. This is actively misleading for an agent deciding whether to pass coordinates alone.
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?
Description clearly defines a bundled US-place lookup: normalized address, county/state, current conditions, and active alerts in one call. The 'bundle' phrasing distinguishes it from sibling geocoding and weather tools, even though it doesn't name them.
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?
Description communicates when to use it: when you need a US place's location details plus current weather and alerts in a single call. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of a 5.
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.
Many tools are clearly separated by prefix and data source, but several bundled products overlap heavily: vehicle_deal_check vs vehicle_report, realestate_property_report vs realestate_site_risk, finance_company_360 vs finance_health_scan, and domain_due_diligence vs email_domain_check/business_vet. An agent would frequently struggle to pick the correct premium bundle.
Tool names overwhelmingly follow a consistent snake_case category-prefix pattern like weather_, crypto_, vehicle_, finance_, and geo_. Minor deviations such as bare names (domain, ip) and noun-verb forms (dns_lookup, url_check) are easy to learn and don't create real confusion.
50 tools is far beyond the typical well-scoped 3–15 range and will require heavy filtering to navigate. The broad multi-domain data marketplace partially justifies the size, but it would be more coherent split into per-domain servers or consolidated further.
For a read-only data/diligence marketplace, the surface is quite comprehensive: weather, vehicle, crypto, SEC/finance, domain/email, sanctions, and geo workflows all have core operations plus fused verdict bundles. Minor gaps exist—such as a simple crypto price lookup or vehicle market value—but agents can usually work around them.