Skip to main content
Glama

flopsindex-mcp

by com.flopsindex.app
OverviewDiscussions(2)Admin

Verify a FLOPS value

verify
Read-only

Check a FLOPS index value against the published index. Pass value with a number you are about to cite (or already hold) and the response tells you whether it is right: verified true/false, expected (what you submitted), actual_value (what FLOPS publishes) and delta_pct. Omit value to simply look up the current published value — then verified is null, which means 'not checked', NOT 'correct'. Without an API key you are checked against the public value, which is rounded to 2 decimals and delayed onto a 6-hour grid, so a full-precision real-time number will not match anonymously. No source list or source-count is exposed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
valueNoOptional. The number you want checked, e.g. 2.14. Omit it to do a plain lookup.
index_idYesFLOPS index identifier (e.g. 'FLOPS-H100-OD', 'FLOPS-B300-OD').

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / index_id / description
      Previous value: -"FLOPS index identifier (e.g. 'FLOPS-H100-OD', 'FLOPS-B300-SPOT')."New value: +"FLOPS index identifier (e.g. 'FLOPS-H100-OD', 'FLOPS-B300-OD')."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / index_id / description
      Previous value: -"FLOPS index identifier (e.g. 'FLOPS-H100-OD-T1', 'FLOPS-B300-SPOT')."New value: +"FLOPS index identifier (e.g. 'FLOPS-H100-OD', 'FLOPS-B300-SPOT')."
    • addedInput schema / properties / value
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. The number you want checked, e.g. 2.14. Omit it to do a plain lookup.",
+  "type": "number"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint, so the description carries the real burden and delivers: it enumerates the response fields (`verified`, `expected`, `actual_value`, `delta_pct`), disambiguates `verified: null` as 'not checked' rather than 'correct', and discloses the anonymous-mode rounding and 6-hour delay that will make full-precision numbers fail. It also states what is NOT exposed (no source list or source count).

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and outcome fields, and each sentence adds a distinct fact (params, null semantics, anonymous caveat, exclusions). It is dense and slightly run-on in the middle, but there is essentially no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description still enumerates the returned fields, and it covers the auth-mode caveat and the negative-result semantics an agent needs to interpret results correctly. Nothing material is missing for a 2-parameter read-only tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: it explains the intent of `value` (a number you are about to cite) and the behavioral consequence of omitting it (verified becomes null). It adds little for `index_id`, which the schema already documents with examples.

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 ('Check a FLOPS index value against the published index') and covers both modes of the operation (verification vs. plain lookup). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_index/get_price/list_indices/search_indices, which either fetch raw data or enumerate rather than validate a submitted value.

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?

Gives explicit conditional guidance: pass `value` when you are about to cite a number, omit it to do a plain lookup, and notes the API-key/anonymous-check tradeoff. It does not, however, name a sibling tool as the alternative for the lookup case (e.g., get_index), leaving that routing to inference.

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

All flopsindex-mcp 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