Skip to main content
Glama

Ask for a source we do not cover

request_source
Read-only

Record that a user needs a source no tool covers. Fetches nothing. Free.

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": {
      "hostname": "<hostname>",
      "why": "<why>"
    },
    "name": "request_source"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
whyYesWhat the user needs from it.
hostnameYesThe bare hostname, such as example.com. Not a URL.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds real context beyond annotations: it discloses that no data is returned and that the call is free, both of which matter to an agent deciding whether to spend a turn here. It stops short of saying what actually happens to the submission (queued? reviewed? when available?), which is the remaining gap given readOnlyHint=true on a "record" operation.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the single most decision-relevant fact ("no tool covers") front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 two-parameter, no-output tool with annotations declaring it read-only and closed-world, the description covers enough to call it correctly. The only missing piece is what the caller gets back, since no output schema exists to answer that.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both fields are well documented in the schema (bare hostname, not a URL; what the user needs). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Record that a user needs a source no tool covers" gives a specific verb (record) and a named resource boundary that explicitly excludes every sibling tool in the catalog. "Fetches nothing" preempts the most likely misinterpretation for a tool in a list dominated by fetchers.

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?

The trigger condition is stated clearly: use this when no existing tool covers the source. It does not spell out the inverse (do not call it when a sibling does cover the host) or name any alternative workflow, but the exclusion is strongly implied by "no tool covers."

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.