Skip to main content
Glama

Ietf Datatracker

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Rfc

rfc
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch IETF Datatracker metadata for an RFC by number (e.g. 9000); returns title, status, authors, publication date, and abstract.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
numberYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
metaNo
objectsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / meta
      Added value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "limit": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "next": {
+      "type": "null"
+    },
+    "offset": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "previous": {
+      "type": "null"
+    },
+    "total_count": {
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / objects
      Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "properties": {
+      "abstract": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "ad": {
+        "type": [
+          "string",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      },
+      "expires": {
+        "type": "null"
+      },
+      "external_url": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "group": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "id": {
+        "type": "number"
+      },
+      "intended_std_level": {
+        "type": "null"
+      },
+      "keywords": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "name": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "note": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "notify": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "pages": {
+        "type": "number"
+      },
+      "resource_uri": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "rev": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "rfc": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "rfc_number": {
+        "type": "number"
+      },
+      "shepherd": {
+        "type": "null"
+      },
+      "states": {
+        "items": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "type": "array"
+      },
+      "std_level": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "stream": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "submissions": {
+        "items": {},
+        "type": "array"
+      },
+      "tags": {
+        "items": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "type": "array"
+      },
+      "time": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "title": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "uploaded_filename": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "words": {
+        "type": "number"
+      }
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • removedOutput schema / properties / results
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Array of matching documents",
-  "items": {
-    "properties": {
-      "abstract": {
-        "description": "Document abstract",
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "name": {
-        "description": "Document name",
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "pages": {
-        "description": "Number of pages",
-        "type": [
-          "number",
-          "null"
-        ]
-      },
-      "published": {
-        "description": "Publication date",
-        "type": [
-          "string",
-          "null"
-        ]
-      },
-      "rfc": {
-        "description": "RFC number if applicable",
-        "type": [
-          "number",
-          "null"
-        ]
-      },
-      "status": {
-        "description": "Document status",
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "title": {
-        "description": "Document title",
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "type": {
-        "description": "Document type",
-        "type": "string"
-      }
-    },
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  "type": "array"
-}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "number": 9000
+  },
+  {
+    "number": 2616
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "RFC document response from IETF Datatracker API",
+  "properties": {
+    "results": {
+      "description": "Array of matching documents",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "abstract": {
+            "description": "Document abstract",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "description": "Document name",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "pages": {
+            "description": "Number of pages",
+            "type": [
+              "number",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "published": {
+            "description": "Publication date",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "rfc": {
+            "description": "RFC number if applicable",
+            "type": [
+              "number",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "status": {
+            "description": "Document status",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "title": {
+            "description": "Document title",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "type": {
+            "description": "Document type",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the data source and the specific metadata fields returned, but does not disclose behaviors like error handling or network dependence. This is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.

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 a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action, then adds the example and return-value details. Every clause adds necessary information with no waste.

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?

For a simple lookup tool with one required parameter, an output schema, and comprehensive safety annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent what to pass, where the data comes from, and what will be returned.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and only defines 'number' as a numeric type. The description compensates by explaining that the parameter is the RFC number, reinforced with concrete examples. Since there is only one parameter, this fully clarifies its meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), names the exact resource ('IETF Datatracker metadata for an RFC'), and gives a concrete example ('e.g. 9000'). It also enumerates the returned content, making the tool's function unambiguous even without opening the schema.

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?

The description makes clear this is for fetching RFC metadata by number, which is sufficient context given the tool's single-purpose nature. No explicit alternative is named, but no closely-related sibling exists among the provided tools, so no exclusionary guidance is necessary.

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

All Ietf Datatracker 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