Skip to main content
Glama

Ergora Developer Specialist

ergora_developer
Read-onlyIdempotent

Ask the Ergora Developer specialist (software craft, DevOps, architecture). 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

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the epistemic nature of the output ('summarised, cited insights from a curated knowledge base'), which matters because no output schema exists, but it omits the free-tier rate-limit behavior that only appears in the email parameter's schema text.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and specialist identity, followed by the return-value nature. No filler or restated title padding.

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 read-only research tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, topic scope and the shape of the return. The remaining gap is routing guidance against the other 18 ergora specialists, which is the one thing an agent most needs here.

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 100% and all four parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning for the required 'query' parameter by defining its topical scope (software craft, DevOps, architecture), helping the agent phrase and route requests correctly.

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?

States a specific verb ('Ask') and resource ('the Ergora Developer specialist') and scopes the domain with 'software craft, DevOps, architecture', which distinguishes it from the many other ergora_* domain specialists. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent away from siblings like ergora_ask or ergora_list_specialists.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description never mentions the general sibling ergora_ask, so an agent cannot tell whether a software question should go here or to the general research tool, nor does it explain what 'specialist' invocation buys over the generic path.

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.