Skip to main content
Glama

Autopia

by io.github.MaydayTrey
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get tool docs

get_tool_docs
Read-onlyIdempotent

The verified behavior sheet for an API: Markdown built only from verified claims, with spec contradictions first, then sibling differences, undocumented rules, and per-endpoint behavior (error shapes, pagination, validation, auth), every line citing trial ids. Accepts a tool name, a host, or the full URL about to be called; a URL or path scopes the sheet to that endpoint plus a one-line index of the others. Brief by default (what would change the request); full=true adds per-parameter validation, response shapes and all evidence ids.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fullNothe whole sheet: per-parameter validation, response shapes, all evidence ids
pathNorequest path to scope to one endpoint, e.g. /repos/github/rest-api-description/issues; template segments match anything
toolYestool name (e.g. github-rest), or the host / URL you are about to call (e.g. api.github.com)
briefNodeprecated: the default; brief=false is the same as full=true
versionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / brief / description
      Previous value: -"divergences, undocumented rules, auth, pagination and error behavior only"New value: +"deprecated: the default; brief=false is the same as full=true"
    • addedInput schema / properties / full
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "the whole sheet: per-parameter validation, response shapes, all evidence ids",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral context: output is built only from verified claims with per-line trial-id citations, contradictions are surfaced first, and the brief-vs-full default controls output volume. It does not mention auth requirements or any rate limits, 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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with what the artifact is before moving to invocation and modes. Every clause carries information, though the middle enumeration of content sections is long enough that a reader must work to parse it in one pass.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so well by naming the sheet's sections and the brief/full distinction. The remaining gap is the undocumented 'version' parameter and the absence of routing guidance against sibling tools that surface similar claim/divergence data.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond it by explaining what full=true actually adds (per-parameter validation, response shapes, all evidence ids) and by describing the scoping semantics of passing a URL versus a path versus a bare tool name. Only the 'version' parameter receives no explanation anywhere, which is the one gap.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific artifact (a Markdown 'verified behavior sheet' for an API) and enumerates its contents: spec contradictions, sibling differences, undocumented rules, and per-endpoint behavior. That is far more concrete than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from plausibly overlapping siblings like get_divergences or get_tool_knowledge, which it only references as content sections rather than as alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It states the accepted inputs (tool name, host, or the full URL about to be called) and that a URL/path scopes the sheet, which implies a pre-request use case. But it never says when to prefer this over get_divergences, get_tool_knowledge, or search_claims, and there are no explicit exclusions. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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

All Autopia toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources