The Cure Protocol

error_catalog

Read-only

EVERY ERROR THIS API CAN RETURN, documented before you hit it: cause, family, whether retrying helps, and what to do instead. Includes the JSON-RPC codes and the idempotency contract. Use this to write error handling that branches on codes rather than on message text. NEXT: hello to start working.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "error_catalog"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	No	A single error code to look up.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No	The answer. Shape depends on the tool; describe_tool documents it.
`_meta`	No	source, generatedAt, sources (per-source lastSyncedAt and ageHours), rateLimit, disclaimer.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 28, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "_meta": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "description": "source, generatedAt, sources (per-source lastSyncedAt and ageHours), rateLimit, disclaimer.",
+      "propertyNames": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "data": {
+      "description": "The answer. Shape depends on the tool; describe_tool documents it."
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 24, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / code / maxLength
```
Added value: +20000
```
First observedOct 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description's job is to add context. It does add genuinely useful behavioral detail — that retryability and the idempotency contract are documented, which directly informs agent retry decisions. Beyond that it says nothing about result shape or how an unknown code is handled, leaving the remaining behavioral burden to the output schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the scope claim, with zero filler — each sentence carries scope, usage, or navigation. Slight deduction because the emphatic all-caps framing and the 'NEXT' line are partially promotional rather than informational.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and for a read-only, zero-required-parameter tool the description covers scope, content, and usage adequately. The one gap an agent must infer is what happens when 'code' is supplied versus omitted.

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 coverage is 100% and the single optional 'code' parameter is already documented as 'A single error code to look up.' The description adds only an implicit contrast ('EVERY ERROR THIS API CAN RETURN'), hinting that omitting the code returns the full catalog, but never states this filtering behavior explicitly.

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 states the resource precisely — a complete catalog of every error the API can return, with cause, family, retry guidance, and remediation — plus JSON-RPC codes and the idempotency contract. It is unmistakably a reference/lookup tool, distinct in kind from the domain-research siblings, though it never names a sibling to contrast with.

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 explicit downstream usage ('write error handling that branches on codes rather than on message text') and a routing hint ('NEXT: hello to start working'), which tells the agent where to go afterward. It does not say when this tool should be skipped or that a single-code lookup is available, so no exclusions are stated.

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

All The Cure Protocol tools Inspect

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

Need Help?