Zoning Signal

Describe Zoning Signal

describe_zoning_signal

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the canonical product description for Zoning Signal — what the observatory is, the four artifact types it publishes, the regional scope of current coverage, and the methodology. Call once per session to ground subsequent tool calls in canonical context.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`built_by`	No
`surfaces`	Yes
`description`	Yes
`methodology`	Yes
`artifact_types`	Yes
`regional_scope`	No

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with those. It adds value by specifying what the canonical description contains and by recommending session-level caching behavior ('once per session'), which is not in the annotations.

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?

Single sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then enumerates the covered content in a compact clause. No filler or repetition; every phrase 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 zero parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description fully explains the tool's role and session-level usage. It is complete for the tool's simplicity and context.

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?

Tool accepts zero parameters, so the schema needs no elaboration. Baseline for zero params is 4; the description adds no contradictory or redundant parameter info.

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?

Description opens with a specific action ('Return the canonical product description') and names the exact resource (Zoning Signal), then spells out the content domains (observatory, artifact types, regional scope, methodology). This distinguishes it from sibling describe_* tools, which target different entities.

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 states 'Call once per session to ground subsequent tool calls in canonical context,' providing clear when-to-use advice. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a full 5.

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

All Zoning Signal tools Inspect

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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools are clearly distinct by resource type (describe/list pairs for places, corridors, entities, patterns, watches), but list_meetings and meeting_index overlap heavily—the former explicitly says it has the same response shape as the latter, differing only in required parameters. That near-duplication creates ambiguity about which to call.

Naming Consistency4/5

The majority follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (describe_*, list_*), with get_track_record and submit_agent_feedback also verb-led. However, meeting_index is a bare noun phrase and semantic_search is a noun compound, deviating from the otherwise strong pattern.

Tool Count4/5

At 17 tools, the server is slightly above the typical well-scoped range, but the count is justified by the many content types (six primary artifact types each with list+describe, plus meta tools). One could argue meeting_index is redundant, but the overall scope feels reasonable.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers the core lifecycle for all named content types (places, corridors, patterns, entities, meetings, watches) with discovery and description. However, the corpus repeatedly references 'briefs' (e.g., related briefs, semantic_search returns 'named-pattern briefs') yet there is no list_briefs or describe_brief tool, leaving an obvious content gap.

Resources

Need Help?