Skip to main content
Glama

yetty

by ai.yetty

yetty_authoring_guide

READ THIS BEFORE WRITING OR SENDING ANY HTML (no account needed, free, instant, no arguments). Returns yetty's exact structure rules — repeated items sharing one class, semantic class names for field labels, headings before sections, no JS-rendered content — that decide whether the site converts into a clean editable CMS with named fields and add/remove collections, or a wall of generic "Text" fields.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly states no account is needed, it is free/instant, has no arguments, and returns structural rules; this makes the tool feel safe and informational. It stops short of explicitly saying 'read-only' or describing network behavior, but the framing is sufficient for a zero-argument guide tool.

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 one dense sentence but front-loads the directive 'READ THIS BEFORE WRITING OR SENDING ANY HTML' and packs relevant details efficiently. The long parenthetical and em-dash list add value without fluff, though it is slightly overstuffed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-argument documentation tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns, when it should be consulted, and why it matters. It even summarizes the likely decision outcome, making the tool self-sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters and the description reinforces that clearly with 'no arguments'. Since there are no parameter semantics to explain, the description fully covers the input side.

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 clearly states the tool returns yetty's exact HTML authoring rules and even lists the categories of rules covered. It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle login, batch operations, and status checks.

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 instructs the agent to read this tool before writing or sending any HTML, providing a clear entry-point cue. It does not spell out when-not-to-use or name alternative tools, but the sibling list makes the context unambiguous.

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

All yetty toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes: batch start/file/end are clearly separated, as are signup, login, and template pulling. However, yetty_claim_status and yetty_login_status both check statuses (of parked upload vs email login) and could be confused without careful reading, though their descriptions clearly differentiate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools share the 'yetty_' prefix and use snake_case, but the pattern varies: some are verb_noun (batch_start, batch_file, pull_template), others are noun (status, claim_status, authoring_guide). While readable and consistent in prefix, the lack of a uniform verb_noun structure is a minor deviation.

Tool Count5/5

10 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool corresponds to a necessary step in the workflow (parking files, approving, authenticating, pulling templates, and checking status), with no redundant or superfluous additions.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle from parking a batch to owner approval and post-authentication access, plus template retrieval. The main gap is lack of explicit cancellation or resend-email tools, but the flow seems self-consistent and agents can likely work around minor omissions.

Resources