Skip to main content
Glama

call_mycel

Any Mycel API route not covered above. method GET or POST (or PATCH/DELETE), path under /v1/, optional JSON body. See https://docs.mycelai.dev for the routes.

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": {
      "method": "<method>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "call_mycel"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoOptional JSON body.
pathYesA path starting with /v1/.
methodYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it never warns that PATCH/DELETE routes can mutate or destroy data, says nothing about auth/scopes, rate limits, or what happens on failure. Mentioning DELETE in a parenthetical is not the same as flagging it as destructive.

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?

Two tight sentences with the fallback condition front-loaded; nothing is padded. The heaviest content is deferred to an external URL, which is efficient in length but shifts documentation off-tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a fully generic, unconstrained API caller with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is thin: return shape, error semantics, auth expectations, and mutation risk are all left to an external docs link. An agent must leave the tool definition to know whether a call is safe or what to expect back.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is moderate (67%), and the description simply restates the schema: 'method GET or POST (or PATCH/DELETE)', 'path under /v1/', 'optional JSON body'. It adds no per-route meaning, no body-shape guidance, and no path examples that would help an agent construct a valid call.

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 names the resource (Mycel API routes) and its role as the catch-all for anything 'not covered above', which distinguishes it from the named sibling tools. It lacks a precise verb because the verb is supplied per-call, but an agent can still tell this is a generic passthrough caller.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('not covered above') that implicitly routes the agent to the specific sibling tools first. It does not state any exclusions beyond that, nor prerequisites such as authentication or which paths are safe, so it stops short of full guidance.

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