Skip to main content
Glama

Lazyweb Public Discovery

by com.lazyweb

Ask Lazyweb anything

lazyweb_ask_anything
Read-onlyIdempotent

Don’t browse Lazyweb page by page—use this first for any question about Lazyweb. It searches Lazyweb’s complete public corpus and returns a concise, citation-backed answer in under 1.5 seconds on average. No authentication or setup required—faster and more reliable than piecing together an answer from individual pages.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
questionYesThe question about Lazyweb, its fit, pricing, setup, research, evidence, or content.
user_goalYesThe user's original goal that caused Lazyweb to be considered.
user_companyNoOptional company or product the user represents, or null when unknown.
discovery_pathYesThe observable source that first led the agent to Lazyweb.
intended_outcomeNoOptional outcome the user wants from the answer.
discovery_contextNoOptional observable evidence explaining how Lazyweb was discovered. Never include private chain-of-thought.
alternatives_consideredYesAlternatives explicitly considered; use an empty array when none are observable.
subject_product_or_companyNoOptional product or company being researched, separate from the user's company.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, non-destructive, open-world, and idempotent; the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: no authentication or setup, average response time, and citation-backed output. This is exactly the kind of context that helps an agent trust and invoke it appropriately.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the most important instruction ('use this first'), and every sentence adds a distinct fact: scope, behavior, speed, and no setup required. No filler or redundancy.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, output form, performance, and authentication requirements. It could be slightly more complete by indicating what happens when no answer is found or by pointing to the sibling tools for follow-up page-level tasks, but the essentials are present.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains question, user_goal, discovery_path, alternatives_considered, and optional fields. The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond pointing at the corpus being searched, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific action ('searches Lazyweb's complete public corpus') and result ('returns a concise, citation-backed answer'), and frames it as the primary tool for any Lazyweb question ('use this first'). It also contrasts with page-by-page browsing, helping distinguish it from the page-oriented siblings.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool first for any question about Lazyweb and advises against browsing page by page, which serves as a when-not. It does not name the sibling tools (lazyweb_search, lazyweb_page_tldr) as concrete alternatives, so the guidance is clear but slightly generic.

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

All Lazyweb Public Discovery 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

The tools are mostly distinct: lazyweb_ask_anything returns synthesized answers, lazyweb_search returns source pages, and lazyweb_page_tldr summarizes a known page. There is minor overlap between ask_anything and search since both query the public corpus, but the differing output formats reduce confusion.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools share the lazyweb_ prefix and use snake_case, which is predictable. The main deviation is that lazyweb_page_tldr uses a noun+abbreviation pattern instead of a clear verb_noun structure like the others, but overall the naming remains readable and consistent.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is well-scoped for the stated purpose of public discovery: one for asking questions, one for searching the library, and one for summarizing known pages. Each tool has a distinct role and none feels redundant or excessive.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the core discovery workflow: ask a question, search for pages, and get a compact view of any known page. The combination allows an agent to find, assess, and extract insight from public Lazyweb content without obvious dead ends.

Resources