Skip to main content
Glama

l0g.fr Risk Intelligence

by io.github.bluetouff

Get Black Box

get_black_box
Read-onlyIdempotent

Renvoie le Black Box Recorder l0g : frames point-in-time hashées des signaux de risque. Avec une date, sélectionne la dernière frame publiée avant ou le jour demandé, sans reconstruction rétroactive.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNoDate à rejouer au format YYYY-MM-DD. Si absente, renvoie la dernière frame.
limitFramesNoNombre de frames récentes à inclure quand date est absente.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNo
frameNo
framesNo
policyNo
replayNo
versionNo
coverageNo
generatedNo
replayableNo
latestFrameNo
requestedDateNo

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: date selection is inclusive of the requested day and performs no retroactive reconstruction.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads what is returned and then explains the date behavior without filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With an output schema, a 100%-described parameter schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the key behavioral nuances an agent needs. Nothing required for a correct call is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the important date semantics (last frame on or before the date, no retroactive reconstruction) beyond the schema's basic type description.

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 names a specific verb ('Renvoie') and resource ('Black Box Recorder l0g'), and clarifies the content as point-in-time hashed frames of risk signals. This is distinct enough from siblings like get_risk_diff or get_risk_indices.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: it is the tool to consult for point-in-time risk-signal frames, with optional date replay. It does not explicitly state when to prefer it over siblings or when not to use it.

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

All l0g.fr Risk Intelligence 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target clearly distinct resources (articles, claims, sources, indices, signal history, integrity), and the descriptions are detailed. The two real ambiguities are get_changefeed vs get_changes, which are near-identical except for filtering, and the Agent Surface metadata cluster (manifest, openapi, integrity, verify, ndjson feed) where an agent could misselect. These are minor enough not to undermine the set.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 21 tools follow a consistent verb-first snake_case pattern with clear semantic verbs: get_ for retrieval, list_ for enumeration, search_ for querying, plus build_research_pack and verify_artifact as lone but clearly communicative composites. There is no mixing of conventions or vague verbs like process or run, making tool selection predictable.

Tool Count4/5

21 tools is above the ideal 3-15 range, but the server covers a broad domain: content retrieval, claims and evidence graphs, risk signals, change monitoring, and integrity verification. A few tools could be consolidated (the changefeed pair and the metadata cluster), but none is pure filler, so the count feels justified though slightly heavy.

Completeness4/5

For a read-only intelligence platform, the coverage is comprehensive: content listing and full-text retrieval, claims and evidence graphs, source auditing, risk indices with history, freshness and risk-diff monitoring, and artifact verification. Minor gaps include no per-source detail endpoint and no push or subscription mechanism, but agents can work around these using list_sources and the changefeed.

Resources