Tulina

oto_tool_schema

Return the input JSON Schema of ANY oto tool by name — even one that is NOT currently listed (hidden by default, connector not installed, FOD…).

Use this to learn the exact arguments shape before calling a latent tool with oto_call. Tool names come from oto_list_my_tools.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "oto_tool_schema"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Exact tool name (e.g. `fr_ccn_search`, `foncier_dpe_adresse`).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the load, and it does disclose the non-obvious trait that the tool resolves schemas for tools not currently listed — a behavior the agent could not infer. It does not state what happens for an unknown/invalid name (error vs empty) or whether resolution is scoped by the caller's access level, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

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?

Three short sentences with the differentiating capability front-loaded in the first line, followed by the use case and the name source. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 one-parameter metadata lookup with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (the input JSON Schema) and why it matters, which is sufficient. Only the failure mode for an unresolvable name is left unaddressed.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single `name` parameter already has a description with examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning on top: the name may refer to a tool that is not listed, and valid names are sourced from `oto_list_my_tools`, which the schema does not say.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Return the input JSON Schema of ANY oto tool by name' — and immediately extends scope to tools that are not listed (hidden, connector not installed, FOD). An agent can distinguish it from oto_list_my_tools (discovery) and oto_call (execution) without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says when to use it: 'to learn the exact `arguments` shape before calling a latent tool with `oto_call`', and states where the input names come from ('Tool names come from `oto_list_my_tools`'). The three sibling tools in this workflow are named with their respective roles, so no inference is required.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Tulina tools Inspect

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

Need Help?