Skip to main content
Glama

Persistent Project Context for xAI Grok

by io.github.Wolfe-Jam
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Print a business card for an agent

faf_business_card
Read-onlyIdempotent

Print a business card for an agent from its own name, description, colour and picture. Returns the agent's .fafa (FAF Agent file) and a link that opens its card. Nothing is stored: the .fafa travels in the link. The card says "self-declared" because nothing is checked against a repo.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
iconNoAn https link to a picture for the logo spot, e.g. "https://example.com/me.png". Optional; none means the monogram. A square PNG (256 x 256, transparent background) or an SVG looks best.
nameYesThe agent's name, up to 100 characters.
accentNoThe card colour as a hex, e.g. "#7c3aed". Optional; none means ink (black or white).
descriptionNoWhat the agent does, in one line, up to 140 characters. Optional.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / icon
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "An https link to a picture for the logo spot, e.g. \"https://example.com/me.png\". Optional; none means the monogram. A square PNG (256 x 256, transparent background) or an SVG looks best.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive), so the description isn't needed there — yet it still adds meaningful behavior: nothing is persisted and the .fafa travels inside the link, plus the 'self-declared' labelling rationale. That is genuine context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return values and the no-storage caveat. Nothing is padded, though the 'self-declared' sentence is marginally decorative relative to invocation.

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 correctly carries the burden of explaining the return (.fafa and a share link) and the no-persistence behavior. It covers what an agent needs to call and interpret the tool, with only usage routing left thin.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the four parameters (icon, name, accent, description) are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the field list without adding format or constraint details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — generating a business card for an agent from its name, description, colour and picture — and names the concrete return artifacts (.fafa file plus a link). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like faf_score or faf_validate, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The use case is only inferable from the purpose sentence, so an agent gets no real routing guidance.

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

All Persistent Project Context for xAI Grok toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources