Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Zero-Trust Physics

by com.zerotrustphysics
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Describe solver

describe_solver
Read-onlyIdempotent

Describes one solver: inputs and bounds, outputs, invariants and tolerances, refusal names and meanings, the published reference, and a worked example. With form "short" the answer is a page, enough to write a first request: what the model is of, the evidence behind it in numbers, each input with its unit and range, the names of its stops, and a worked request. The full form, the answer when form is left out, adds each bound's reason, the validation record and each stop's meaning.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formNoLeave this key out, or "full", for the whole description; "short" for a page that is enough to write a first request.
partNoLeave this key out to get the solver's whole description. Some long descriptions name, under 'more', parts kept back for asking: set part to one of the names listed there for that part alone. Only a name listed under 'more' is a part.
solverYesThe solver, as list_solvers names it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / form
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Leave this key out, or \"full\", for the whole description; \"short\" for a page that is enough to write a first request.",
+  "enum": [
+    "short",
+    "full"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered. With no output schema, the description carries the return-content burden and does so well, spelling out what the short page contains versus what the full form adds. It omits error/refusal-handling mechanics and any auth or rate-limit notes, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and each sentence adds distinct information about the short and full forms. Some phrasing is circuitous ('the names of its stops', 'the validation record'), costing a little efficiency, but nothing is pure filler.

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?

For a read-only, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies what an agent needs: what the solver description contains, how the two forms differ, and where solver names come from. Only minor gaps remain around part-selection behavior and failure modes.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema's one-line enum note by enumerating what each form actually returns, giving the agent a substantive basis for choosing short vs full. The 'part' parameter's mechanics are left to the schema, so it is not a full 5.

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 names a specific verb (describes) and resource (one solver) and enumerates exactly what is covered: inputs and bounds, outputs, invariants and tolerances, refusals, reference, and a worked example. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from list_solvers by pointing at that tool as the source of solver names.

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 clearly explains when to pick the short form (enough to write a first request) versus the full form (the default, adds bound reasons, validation record, and stop meanings), which is real decision guidance. It does not, however, say when to reach for this tool over siblings such as describe_card or find_model, so no explicit alternative/exclusion is given.

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

All Zero-Trust Physics toolsInspect
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