Skip to main content
Glama

uored

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Random Activity

random_activity
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get a random activity suggestion to cure boredom. Returns activity name, type, participant count, and price range.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyNoActivity key or null
linkNoRelated link or null
typeNoActivity category
priceNoPrice range (0-1 scale)
activityNoActivity name or description
durationNoActivity duration or null
availabilityNo
kid_friendlyNoWhether activity is kid friendly or null
participantsNoNumber of participants
accessibilityNoAccessibility rating (0-1 scale)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed7 schema fields changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / accessibility / type
      Previous value: -"number"New value: +"string"
    • addedOutput schema / properties / availability
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / properties / duration / type
      Previous value: -[
-  "string",
-  "null"
-]New value: +"string"
    • changedOutput schema / properties / key / type
      Previous value: -[
-  "string",
-  "null"
-]New value: +"string"
    • changedOutput schema / properties / kid_friendly / type
      Previous value: -[
-  "boolean",
-  "null"
-]New value: +"boolean"
    • changedOutput schema / properties / link / type
      Previous value: -[
-  "string",
-  "null"
-]New value: +"string"
    • removedOutput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "activity",
-  "type",
-  "participants",
-  "price",
-  "accessibility",
-  "duration",
-  "kid_friendly",
-  "link",
-  "key"
-]
  2. Added
  3. Removed
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds return field context ('activity name, type, participant count, and price range'), but the output schema already exists, so this is somewhat redundant. No additional behavioral traits such as randomness source or error handling are disclosed.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two short sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose ('Get a random activity suggestion to cure boredom') and then lists the key return fields. No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, zero parameters, rich annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient. It clearly explains what the tool does and what the user receives, making it complete for the given context.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, meaning there are no parameters to describe. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when no parameters exist; the description adds nothing about parameters because none are needed.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get a random activity suggestion to cure boredom.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('random activity suggestion'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like activity_by_participants and activity_by_type by emphasizing randomness rather than filtering.

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?

The description provides clear context ('to cure boredom') and implies the tool is for random, unfiltered suggestions, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. No exclusionary guidance is given, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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

All uored 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several clusters overlap: the three random-activity tools are near-variants of the same action, ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, and discover_tools/suggest_questions both serve capability discovery. The detailed descriptions help agents choose correctly, but the boundaries are not always crisp.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case, but conventions are mixed: verb_noun (resolve_entity, discover_tools), bare verbs (remember, subscribe), adjective_noun (recent_alerts, deep_research), and noun compounds (polymarket_edge_tracker, entity_profile). Clusters are internally consistent, but there is no single pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold and feels bloated. The random-activity trio and the ask_pipeworx stable/beta/grounded trio add redundancy, and several meta-tools could be consolidated. The broad domain scope justifies some of the size, but not all of it.

Completeness3/5

The data query, memory, and Polymarket research surfaces are well covered, but the subscription lifecycle is incomplete: list_subscriptions invites cancellation yet there is no cancel/unsubscribe tool, creating a dead end. Other areas have minor workarounds but no other show-stopping gaps.

Resources