catalog
List free preflight and paid Federal Register evidence products
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
ARAKEL Machine Evidence Network
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. The verb 'List' conveys a read-only retrieval operation, but the description does not disclose output format, pagination, or whether any costs/limits apply to the paid products. Basic behavior is clear, details are not.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single compact sentence that states the operation and scope without wasted words. The key qualifiers ('free preflight and paid') are included.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an empty-parameter list tool, the description is largely complete: it names the subject and scope. However, with no output schema, it would be stronger if it mentioned the shape of the returned product list or any pagination.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description adds useful context by defining what the catalog contains, meeting the baseline for a no-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' with a precise resource: free preflight and paid Federal Register evidence products. This distinguishes the catalog tool from sibling quote/status tools, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'List ... products' implies the tool is for browsing available evidence products, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. Usage context is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
Several tools have heavily overlapping roles: 'quote' and 'machine_quote' both appear to offer free preflight quotes and x402 pricing, while 'coverage' and 'coverage_status' both relate to observation/watch coverage. 'catalog' and 'machine_sources' also blur the line between listing products and listing source adapters. An agent would likely struggle to pick the correct tool without deeper context.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tool names use lowercase snake_case and mostly follow a noun/status pattern. The 'machine_' prefix creates a recognizable subgroup, and quote-related names are clearly grouped. Minor inconsistency exists because some names are action-oriented (batch_quote, catalog) while others are status-oriented (coverage_status, discovery_status), but the overall style is coherent.
Tool Count5/5
Ten tools is a reasonable, well-scoped count for a specialized evidence/quote/status service. Each tool addresses a distinct operational concern: quotes, coverage, status, catalog, sources, and telemetry. The count does not feel inflated or too thin.
Completeness2/5
The server covers preflight quoting, coverage checks, catalog listing, status, sources, and sales telemetry, but conspicuously lacks any tool for purchasing, paying, or retrieving completed evidence/proofs. The quote descriptions repeatedly reference x402 payment and payable batches, yet there is no obvious order or fulfillment endpoint. This creates a dead end for agents trying to complete a transaction.