Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Chorus

by com.choruskeepsake
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get back into a book when the handle is gone.

find_my_book

Given the email address a book belongs to, Chorus emails that address a six digit code and returns nothing about the books. Given the address and the code, it returns every book on that account with its handle. Holding the mailbox is the proof, so a book cannot be found by guessing an address.

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": {
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "find_my_book"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeNoThe six digit code that was emailed. Without it, Chorus emails one.
emailYesThe email address the book belongs to.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / code / description
      Previous value: -"The six digit code that was emailed. Leave it out on the first call to have one sent."New value: +"The six digit code that was emailed. Without it, Chorus emails one."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / code / description
      Previous value: -"The eight digit code that was emailed. Leave it out on the first call to have one sent."New value: +"The six digit code that was emailed. Leave it out on the first call to have one sent."
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / code / description
      Previous value: -"The six digit code that was emailed. Leave it out on the first call to have one sent."New value: +"The eight digit code that was emailed. Leave it out on the first call to have one sent."
  4. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description supplies the reason: the first call sends an actual email to an external address and returns nothing. That is useful context beyond the annotations. It doesn't cover repeat-call behavior (does calling again send another code?), code expiry, or rate limits.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary case and then the code case, ending with the security rationale. Nothing is padded, though the last sentence is reassurance rather than operational instruction.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the full flow, the side effect, and what comes back (books with handles). Only edge cases — expired codes, repeated requests — are left unstated.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema itself already documents both parameters, including that omitting code causes Chorus to email one. The description restates that conditional behavior rather than adding format details, so it sits at the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 two-phase operation with concrete inputs and outputs: email alone triggers a six-digit code email and returns nothing about books; email plus code returns every book on the account with its handle. This is distinguishable from siblings like their_own_link and get_links, which imply different recovery paths.

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 makes the call sequence clear: call without code to trigger the email, call again with the code to get handles. It also states a constraint that shapes usage — possession of the mailbox is the proof, so addresses can't be guessed. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling alternatives for handle recovery.

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

All Chorus 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