Get adoption stats for every protocol BotFriendly tracks: the machine-readable interfaces (MCP, OpenAPI) and the agent payment, authorization, and commerce protocols (x402, mpp, l402, ap2, tap, agent-pay, ace, acp, ucp, actp, icc). Each entry carries its sponsor, layer, spec URL, and how many listed services support it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 is an implied read-only stats call and describes the per-entry content: sponsor, layer, spec URL, and support count. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but for a zero-parameter read operation this is adequate.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, the protocol list is precise, and the output details are presented compactly.
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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns and includes enough field-level detail to know what to expect without needing an example or additional schema.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter-level meaning. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output semantics instead.
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 states a specific action ('Get adoption stats') and a specific resource ('every protocol BotFriendly tracks'). It enumerates the exact protocols covered and the fields returned, making it impossible to confuse with the sibling tools focused on services, categories, and site checks.
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 description makes the intended context clear: use this tool when you need protocol-level adoption statistics. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are clearly distinct in scope, so the usage context is unambiguous.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but get_featured and search_services both surface promoted listings, which creates mild overlap. The descriptions explain the difference well enough that an agent can choose correctly.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: check_site, get_featured, get_service, list_categories, search_services, submit_service. The verbs clearly indicate the action and the nouns indicate the resource.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a directory service: browsing, searching, retrieving details, viewing metadata, analyzing external sites, and submitting new entries. Each tool earns its place without unnecessary bloat.
The directory core is well covered: search, detail views, categories, featured listings, protocol stats, and submission. The main gap is lack of update or delete operations for submitted services, but the stated public directory workflow does not clearly require them.
