Skip to main content
Glama

Silicon Friendly

by com.siliconfriendly

submit_website

Submit a new website to the Silicon Friendly directory.

Requires authentication. Pass your silicon auth_token.

Args:
    url: The website URL (e.g. "https://stripe.com")
    name: Display name for the website (e.g. "Stripe")
    description: What the site does and why it's useful for agents
    auth_token: Your Silicon bearer token for authentication

Returns:
    The created website entry, or an error if it already exists.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
nameYes
auth_tokenNo
descriptionNo

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authentication requirement and notes that an error is returned if the website already exists, giving insight into idempotency and failure behavior. It does not cover rate limits or reversibility, but covers the key operational traits for a submit action.

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?

The description is well-structured with a clear opening, a note on authentication, an Args block, and a Returns block. It is somewhat lengthy but each sentence/block adds value, especially since the schema lacks descriptions. The purpose is front-loaded, making it efficient to scan.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete: it covers authentication, all parameters, and the return/error behavior. It does not mention potential prerequisites like checking for existing entries via sibling tools, but for a submission tool, this is sufficient.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the parameter descriptions in the tool description are essential. Each parameter (url, name, description, auth_token) is described with practical examples for url and name, and clear purpose for description and auth_token. This goes beyond the bare schema and adequately compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Submit a new website to the Silicon Friendly directory' with a specific verb ('submit') and resource ('website'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that check, get, list, search, or verify websites, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 usage (adding a website to the directory) and provides a prerequisite ('Requires authentication'), but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. Sibling tools that perform reads or verification are not contrasted, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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

All Silicon Friendly 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

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.

Resources