Skip to main content
Glama

jokes

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Get Joke

get_joke
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get a random joke, optionally filtered by category (e.g., 'general', 'programming') or type ('single' or 'twopart'). Returns joke text, category, and content flags.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoJoke type. One of: single, twopart. Omit to allow either type.
categoryNoJoke category. One of: Any, Programming, Misc, Dark, Pun, Spooky, Christmas. Defaults to "Any".
safe_modeNoWhen true, only return jokes that are flagged safe by JokeAPI. Defaults to true.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jokeNoFull joke text for single-part jokes
safeYesWhether joke is flagged as safe
typeYesJoke type
setupNoSetup text for two-part jokes
categoryYesJoke category
deliveryNoPunchline for two-part jokes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "category": "Programming",
+    "safe_mode": true,
+    "type": "single"
+  },
+  {
+    "category": "Dark",
+    "safe_mode": false
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "category": {
+      "description": "Joke category",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "delivery": {
+      "description": "Punchline for two-part jokes",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "joke": {
+      "description": "Full joke text for single-part jokes",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "safe": {
+      "description": "Whether joke is flagged as safe",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "setup": {
+      "description": "Setup text for two-part jokes",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": {
+      "description": "Joke type",
+      "enum": [
+        "single",
+        "twopart"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "type",
+    "category",
+    "safe"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / examples
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "id": "R7UfaahbfFd"
-  }
-]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "id": {
-      "description": "Unique identifier for the joke",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "joke": {
-      "description": "The joke text",
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "id",
-    "joke"
-  ],
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "id": {
+      "description": "Unique identifier for the joke",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "joke": {
+      "description": "The joke text",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "id",
+    "joke"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "id": "R7UfaahbfFd"
+  }
+]
  5. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
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, so the safety profile is well-covered. The description adds a brief note about return contents (joke text, category, content flags), which complements the output schema but does not introduce any contradictions or additional behavioral warnings.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary details and is appropriately sized for a simple random-joke tool.

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?

Given the simple tool behavior, strong annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and filters. It lacks explicit usage guidance for related tools, but that is not a completeness issue for a standalone random-joke tool. The invalid category example is a slight detractor but does not make the description incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides full parameter descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. However, the description gives 'general' as an example category, which is not a valid category in the schema (valid ones are Any, Programming, Misc, Dark, Pun, Spooky, Christmas). This misleading example undermines the description's value and could cause incorrect parameter usage.

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 action ('Get a random joke') and the resource (jokes). It also differentiates from sibling tools like search_jokes, get_joke_categories, and get_joke_flags by emphasizing the random selection and optional filters.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (for obtaining a random joke with optional category/type filters). While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the context is sufficient for a simple tool, and it does not mislead about its usage.

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

All jokes 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

The server contains 4 joke-related tools and 31 tools from the Pipeworx data ecosystem, which are entirely unrelated. An agent cannot easily distinguish whether to use a joke tool or a data tool, causing extreme ambiguity.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names within the joke subset (e.g., get_joke, search_jokes) and Pipeworx subset (e.g., ask_pipeworx, entity_profile) are individually consistent, but the overall set has no unified naming pattern or domain signal, making the server's purpose unclear.

Tool Count1/5

With 35 tools, the count is excessive for a jokes-themed server. Only 4 tools are joke-related; the remaining 31 belong to a completely different domain, making the tool count highly inappropriate.

Completeness1/5

The joke coverage (get, search, categories, flags) is minimal but functional. However, the server as a whole is a Frankenstein of unrelated domains, lacking a coherent surface. The overwhelming majority of tools are irrelevant to the server name.

Resources