Skip to main content
Glama

Tango

by io.applayer

Tango glossary — terms and definitions

glossary
Read-only

Look up Tango vocabulary: Epic, Feature, Task, lease, claim, handoff, escalated, receipt, worker key, context source and more. Call with no arguments for the whole versioned glossary, or with term to resolve one word. Cache by version; re-read when it changes. Same content as https://tango.applayer.io/glossary.txt

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
termNoA term, slug or alias to look up (e.g. 'epic', 'lease', 'byok'). Omit for everything.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already convey read-only and non-destructive behavior, so no credit is needed for restating that. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: content is versioned, should be cached by version, and must be re-read when the version changes, plus it names the canonical source.

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?

Three dense sentences carry purpose, usage, caching, and provenance with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded before usage details.

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?

For a simple, optional-parameter lookup tool with readOnly annotations, the description covers invocation modes, version/caching behavior, and content source. No output schema exists, but the return value (terms and definitions matching the listed vocabulary) is sufficiently inferable.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema already fully documents the single optional `term` parameter (100% coverage), including examples and omit-for-everything semantics. The description adds minor color ('resolve one word', 'whole versioned glossary'), but no material parameter information beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Look up Tango vocabulary'), lists representative terms, and makes the tool's scope obvious. It is immediately distinguishable from the many get/list siblings because it is the only vocabulary-resolution tool.

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 explicitly instructs how to invoke the tool: no arguments for the whole glossary, `term` for a single word, and when to refresh cached results. It does not name excluded alternatives, but none of the siblings compete for this purpose.

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

All Tango 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools target a distinct resource and action, but several adjacent pairs are easy to confuse: add_comment vs add_progress_note, call_executor vs call_integration, log_client_decision vs update_client_context vs memory_save, and list_context_sources vs list_integrations. The descriptions do disambiguate them, but the boundaries are subtle enough that misselection is likely with 81 tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_task, update_project, list_integrations, set_webhook), and get_/ list_/ create_/ update_ families are predictable. Minor deviations exist: memory_read/memory_save/memory_search invert to object_verb, and bare nouns like whoami, glossary, and security_posture break the pattern, but there is no chaotic casing or mixed conventions.

Tool Count2/5

At 81 tools, this is far above the weight that is comfortable for an agent's tool-selection surface, especially since many tools belong to families that could be consolidated (webhooks, worker keys, project logs, context/memory). Although the domain is broad, the count will overwhelm agents and increase misrouting.

Completeness4/5

The surface is unusually comprehensive: tasks, projects, workers, leases, artifacts, comments, handoffs, webhooks, keys, context, memory, integrations, and support all have create/read/update/delete or equivalent lifecycle coverage. The gaps are minor, such as remove_dependency without a visible add_dependency and no artifact/comment deletion, but agents can work around them.

Resources