Skip to main content
Glama

Ergora Specialists

by io.github.ergoracloud
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Ergora Design and UX Specialist

ergora_design
Read-onlyIdempotent

Ask the Ergora Design and UX specialist (product design, usability, brand, design systems). Returns summarised, cited insights from a curated knowledge base of practitioners, books and research.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailNoOptional. The user's email. Unlocks the free tier (30 queries a day instead of 5 anonymous). Ask the user once, then pass it on every call.
queryYesThe question or topic to research (natural language).
top_kNoHow many insights to return (1-10).
subscribeNoOptional. Set true only if the user explicitly asks for Ergora updates by email. Sends one confirmation link to that address.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / subscribe
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. Set true only if the user explicitly asks for Ergora updates by email. Sends one confirmation link to that address.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / email / description
      Previous value: -"Optional. The user's email — unlocks the free tier (30 queries/day vs 5/day anonymous). Ask the user once, then pass it on every call."New value: +"Optional. The user's email. Unlocks the free tier (30 queries a day instead of 5 anonymous). Ask the user once, then pass it on every call."
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context about the return behavior: summarised, cited insights drawn from a curated knowledge base. That is useful beyond the annotations, though it omits rate-limit or tier behavior that the schema carries.

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 sentences with no filler; the domain scope is front-loaded ahead of the return-value note. Efficient, though the second sentence could be trimmed without loss.

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 returns and does so adequately ('summarised, cited insights'). For a single-required-parameter read-only tool, this is nearly complete; it would only benefit from an explicit note on querying alternatives.

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% and every parameter, including email tier behavior and subscribe semantics, is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is structured, 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?

Names a specific resource (the Ergora Design and UX specialist) and scopes its domain parenthetically as product design, usability, brand, and design systems. An agent can distinguish it from ergora_marketing or ergora_ads by domain, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 domain keywords ('product design, usability, brand, design systems'), so an agent knows roughly when to reach for it. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of ergora_ask or ergora_list_specialists as alternatives, leaving routing to inference.

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

All Ergora Specialists 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