Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Seonix

by io.github.pahaa97
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get playbook

get_playbook
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read one Seonix playbook by name (same text as the prompt of that name) — for clients that do not surface MCP prompts.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "get_playbook"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesPlaybook name from list_playbooks.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds value beyond them by disclosing that the returned payload is identical to the MCP prompt text and stating the client-compatibility rationale.

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 sentence with the primary action front-loaded and zero filler. Everything in it is load-bearing.

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 still tells the agent what comes back (the same text as the prompt of that name), which is the key gap it needed to close. Minor omission: no statement of what happens when the name is unknown.

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 the single parameter is documented as coming from list_playbooks, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds only the phrase "by name" and no format or validation detail beyond that.

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 and resource ("Read one Seonix playbook by name") and the singular "one" implicitly contrasts with the list_playbooks sibling. It does not name list_playbooks directly in the description, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

"for clients that do not surface MCP prompts" gives an explicit condition that selects this tool over the prompt of the same name. That is a real when-to-use rule, though it doesn't spell out the inverse case or error behavior for unknown names.

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

All Seonix 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