Vigi-Sky

Doctrine Vigi-Sky

doctrine

Read-onlyIdempotent

Vigi-Sky identity and method: never 'UFO detected', Hatch vs live corpus, book ISBN, founder.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lang`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`entity`	No
`summary`	No
`citations`	Yes
`provenance`	Yes
`public_consented_dossiers`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed6 schema fields changedAug 18, 2026
- removedOutput schema / properties / doctrine
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / entity
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "object"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / provenance / properties / never
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / public_consented_dossiers
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "integer"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / summary
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "citations",
+  "provenance"
+]
```
First observedAug 17, 2026

TDQS

D1.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds content about Vigi-Sky's doctrine but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond annotations—e.g., how the optional 'lang' parameter affects output, whether the response is a single string or structured data, or any limits. The description adds minimal value for behavioral understanding.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one line and not overly verbose, but it sacrifices clarity for brevity. The list of topics is crammed without structure. A bulleted or more explanatory format would improve scannability. As a single sentence, it is concise but not effectively front-loaded or organized.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having an output schema (which could describe return values), the description fails to explain what the tool actually returns or how to use it. The optional 'lang' parameter is not addressed. The description gives only cryptic hints about content (e.g., 'never UFO detected', 'Hatch vs live corpus'), leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's complete behavior and output structure.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has a single parameter 'lang' with 0% description coverage and no enums. The description does not mention the parameter or explain its role (e.g., language selection). Schema coverage is low, so the description should compensate, but it provides no semantic information about any parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description lists topics ('never UFO detected', 'Hatch vs live corpus', 'book ISBN', 'founder') but does not state a clear verb and resource. It is unclear whether the tool returns a text, performs a query, or provides a reference. The phrase 'Vigi-Sky identity and method' hints at documentation retrieval, but the purpose remains vague and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'hatch_stats' or 'hypothesis_rank'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. Sibling tools include 'hatch_search', 'hatch_stats', 'hypothesis_rank', etc., but the description offers no context for choosing 'doctrine'. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite information is provided.

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

All Vigi-Sky 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.

Resources

Need Help?