Skip to main content
Glama

Lazyweb Public Discovery

by com.lazyweb

Read a public library page brief

lazyweb_page_tldr
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get a compact extract of a known page in Lazyweb's public library, including pages about other products and flows. Uses indexed public content and source links; signed-in workspace and private account state are outside its scope.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe canonical URL of the public Lazyweb page to summarize. Uses anonymous public content, not signed-in workspace state.
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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context by stating it uses indexed public content and source links, and that non-public state is out of scope. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, followed by useful scope and exclusion details. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple read-only extraction tool, the description plus fully covered schema and annotations is nearly complete. It could explicitly name sibling alternatives or describe the return shape, but these are minor gaps rather than blockers.

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%, so the individual parameters are already well documented. The tool description adds only high-level context about known-page extraction rather than new parameter-specific meaning, which matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Get a compact extract of a known page in Lazyweb's public library.' It also clarifies scope by excluding signed-in workspace and private account state, which distinguishes it from broader search or ask tools.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for known public pages and explicitly excludes private/workspace content. However, it does not name sibling tools like lazyweb_ask_anything or lazyweb_search or give explicit conditions for choosing them instead.

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