Skip to main content
Glama

One horse's form

horse_form
Read-onlyIdempotent

A thoroughbred's recent starts and statistics, by name or the pe:/ra: reference other tools return. Costs 3 credits. Every plan.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "horse": "<horse>"
    },
    "name": "horse_form"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
horseYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesThe API response, with links and empty fields removed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds useful context such as the 3-credit cost and availability on every plan. It does not contradict the annotations, though it says little about rate limits or other operational constraints beyond pricing.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the resource being returned, then adds only the essential input-form, cost, and plan details. Every sentence carries useful information with no 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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description supplies the key scope, accepted input references, cost, and plan availability. The main remaining gap is the lack of sibling differentiation against race_form.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented horse parameter. It does so meaningfully by stating that the input can be a horse name or the pe:/ra reference returned by other tools, though it does not give examples or further format details.

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 clearly states the resource and scope: a thoroughbred's recent starts and statistics, for one horse rather than a race. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from the sibling race_form tool, so it falls short of the strongest sibling-aware clarity.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description explains what the tool returns and what identifier formats it accepts, but it gives no guidance on when to use horse_form instead of race_form or other related tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection cues.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.