Skip to main content
Glama

WingmanProtocol Agent Gateway

by com.wingmanprotocol.agent

discover_tools

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find the right tool WITHOUT loading all 160+ schemas into your context. Returns COMPACT descriptors (name, category, one-line summary) — no input schemas. Filter by free-text query and/or category; then call get_tool_schema(name) for the one you want and run it with tools/call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNomax results (default 40, max 150)
queryNofree-text match over tool name/summary
categoryNofilter to one category, e.g. finance, trades, memory, browser, vault, web, meta

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent. The description adds value by detailing the compact return format (no input schemas) and the filtering workflow.

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 dense sentences with zero waste. Purpose and workflow are front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains the compact return and next steps (get_tool_schema). Covers all three parameters and usage intent completely.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning: query matches over name/summary, limit is mentioned, and category filtering is explained. No conflicts.

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?

Clearly states the tool finds tools without loading schemas, returns compact descriptors, and distinguishes from get_tool_schema by specifying the lightweight output.

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?

Explicitly advises to use this tool to avoid loading 160+ schemas, and directs the agent to call get_tool_schema afterward. No explicit 'when not to use', but context is clear.

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

All WingmanProtocol Agent Gateway 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools serve similar purposes (e.g., web_read vs browse_read, web_discover vs browse_discover, research vs web_search + browse). Descriptions help differentiate, but the overlap is notable.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., archive_message, browse_navigate). Minor deviations like standalone 'browse' and 'identity' are acceptable.

Tool Count2/5

57 tools is very high for a single server, even with discover_tools. The broad domain coverage does not justify the count; it feels overloaded.

Completeness4/5

Covers identity, memory, browsing, human tasks, errands, messaging, and research comprehensively. Minor gaps might exist (e.g., no explicit agent-to-agent contract tools), but core workflows are well-supported.

Resources