Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Polyrank

by io.github.polyrank
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Polyrank ranking templates (Builder goals + presets)

polyrank_list_ranking_templates
Read-onlyIdempotent

The Ranking Builder's goals (e.g. "Copy entries", "Copy engine") as the exact request the Builder runs for each, and the site's preset boards with their configs. Pass a goal's request (or a preset's config) to polyrank_rank_wallets to reproduce that board, or edit it. A goal banner is a measured caveat to show with the board. Free, no key.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "polyrank_list_ranking_templates"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

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 declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real context beyond that — the resource is free with no key required, and a goal's `banner` is a measured caveat surfaced with the board. It stops short of describing result size, ordering, or whether preset configs are editable in place.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences that front-load what the tool returns before explaining how to consume it. The one payoff dip is the awkward 'as the exact request the Builder runs for each' phrasing, which takes a re-read to parse.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining the return payload, and it does so adequately by naming goals, requests, preset boards, configs, and banners. It could be complete with a note on how many templates come back or whether goal and preset are separate result sections.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-arg tool applies. The description instead clarifies the shape of the returned fields (`request`, config, `banner`), which is the relevant semantic information here.

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?

The description names the specific resource returned — the Ranking Builder's goals (with example goal names 'Copy entries', 'Copy engine') and the site's preset boards with their configs — so an agent knows this is a template/preset catalog. It is a clear read of a named resource, though the opening clause 'as the exact request the Builder runs for each' is slightly convoluted and it doesn't distinguish itself from polyrank_list_lab_templates.

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?

It gives explicit next-step guidance: hand a goal's `request` or a preset's config to polyrank_rank_wallets to reproduce the board, or edit it. It does not state when to call this versus the other list_* siblings (lab templates, strategies), but the downstream routing is unambiguous.

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

All Polyrank 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