Skip to main content
Glama

Parking Moved

parking_moved
Read-onlyIdempotent

How many cars miss their preferred spot. (1,1) moves 1 car. (2,1) moves none. (1,2,1) moves 1. A list that is not a parking function is rejected. The list has 1 to 8 entries, each from 1 to 8. Price: $0.001 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: POST https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/parking-moved

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": {
      "prefs": "<prefs>"
    },
    "name": "parking_moved"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
prefsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds useful context: invalid inputs are rejected and calls cost $0.001 USDC via x402 on Solana. It also provides an alternate HTTPS endpoint, which is valuable operational information.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the description is appropriately short. The examples, pricing note, and endpoint are concise and useful, though the prose is terse enough that the return semantics are only implied.

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 math tool with no output schema, the description covers input meaning, bounds, rejection behavior, and payment mechanics well. Its main gap is not explicitly stating that the return value is a count of moved/missing cars, though the opening question implies it.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains that the input is a list of preferred spots with 1 to 8 entries from 1 to 8, and the examples clarify what those values represent in the parking process.

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 clearly states the tool computes how many cars miss their preferred spot, and the examples make the parking-function behavior concrete. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as parking, parking_shift, parking_spots, or parking_witness.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description says invalid parking functions are rejected and gives input bounds, but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related parking tools. There are no alternatives named and no usage exclusions.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources