Skip to main content
Glama

Rokha

by ai.rokha
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

orbitx_menu · Orbitx

orbitx__orbitx_menu
Read-only

OrbitX command menu — branded banner + capability list. Call when the user says /, menu, help, or asks what you can do. — Orbitx's MCP server, a live seat on The Wall (hosted by them). Called through their seat; their data comes back as it is. Read-shaped tools only (anything that buys, sells or writes refuses). Listing: https://rokha.ai/registry?skill=orbitx-official-mcp

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
authCodeNoOptional authCode from dashboard paste or orbitx_auth_link

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Previous value: -trueNew value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties
      Added value: +{
+  "authCode": {
+    "description": "Optional authCode from dashboard paste or orbitx_auth_link",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful context: 'Read-shaped tools only (anything that buys, sells or writes refuses)' and that the server is a 'live seat on The Wall' with data returned 'as it is'. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact, front-loads the purpose and invocation triggers, and includes the read-only constraint and a listing URL. Some phrasing ('their data comes back as it is') is slightly cryptic, but the overall structure is efficient.

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 a simple menu tool with zero required parameters and read-only annotations, the description covers what the tool returns (banner + capability list), when to call it, and its safety constraints. The optional authCode is left to the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter, authCode, is fully documented in the schema with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about how authCode affects behavior or when it is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the tool as an 'OrbitX command menu' that returns a 'branded banner + capability list', and it gives concrete trigger phrases ('/, menu, help'). It is clear about the resource and intent, though it uses a noun phrase rather than a strong verb and does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similar sibling 'orbitx__orbitx_telegram_cmds'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says to call it when the user says '/', 'menu', 'help', or asks what the agent can do, which is strong usage guidance. It does not provide when-not-to-use conditions or name alternative tools, so it falls just 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.

All Rokha toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources