get_levels_info
Get info about the 5-level rating system and all 30 criteria.
Returns:
The level system explanation and all criteria with their descriptions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Silicon Friendly
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, but the description indicates a read-only operation ('Get info') and describes what is returned. It does not disclose potential failure modes or edge cases, but for a simple no-parameter getter, this is adequate and adds useful output context.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and provides a clear 'Returns' note. Every word contributes value; no redundancy or irrelevant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what the tool does and what it returns. It is complete in context, even without explicit usage scenarios.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics. Per the rubric, zero parameters warrant a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the output details are described instead.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves information about the 5-level rating system and all 30 criteria. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on website operations like verification and search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when an agent needs details about the rating system or criteria, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. The sibling tools have obviously different purposes, so the context is clear though not explicitly stated.
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.
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct resources (levels, queue, websites, verification) and actions. check_agent_friendliness and get_website both retrieve info about a specific site, but the former is a quick status check while the latter provides full criteria details, so they are distinguishable. No other overlapping tools.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get, list, search, submit, verify, check). The verbs clearly indicate the action, and nouns indicate the target. No mixed conventions or stylistic inconsistencies.
Tool Count5/5
8 tools is well-scoped for a directory service with submission, verification, search, and listing capabilities. Each tool serves a distinct function without redundancy, and the count is within the ideal range.
Completeness3/5
The tool set covers the core workflows: submit, verify, search, list, and check status. However, there are no update or delete operations for websites, which is a notable gap for managing directory entries. The absence of these operations could limit maintenance workflows.