Skip to main content
Glama

Base32 encode, input discarded

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

base32-ok

Base32 encode, input discarded

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refNoGit ref name; discarded after the shape check
urlNoHTTPS URL to normalize or cite
cityNoCity name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call
feedNoPublic RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded
hostNoPublic hostname
jsonNoJSON text to validate; discarded after the check
pathNoFile path to check; no disk access
zoneNoIANA timezone name
queryNoSearch text; discarded after the length check
websiteNoPublic https website (homepage domain) to check for agent readiness: robots.txt, llms.txt, sitemap.xml, extractable HTML. Bounded, identified, robots-respecting.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / website
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Public https website (homepage domain) to check for agent readiness: robots.txt, llms.txt, sitemap.xml, extractable HTML. Bounded, identified, robots-respecting.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

D1.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that input is discarded, which is a behavioral trait, but this is confusing since it claims to encode. It does not disclose side effects, errors, or what happens to the output. The description is too sparse to provide meaningful transparency, and the contradiction between 'encode' and 'discarded' undermines trust.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short (one clause), which might seem concise, but it is under-specified and not front-loaded with useful information. Every word is wasted because it does not clarify the tool's purpose. There is no structure or prioritization of key information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain how to use the tool, what the parameters are for, what the return value is, or when to choose it over siblings. An agent has no way to correctly invoke this tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents each parameter. Description adds no value beyond the schema; it does not explain which parameters are relevant to encoding or how they are used. With 10 parameters and no mention of them, the description fails to compensate for the ambiguity of which parameter(s) to provide.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Base32 encode, input discarded' claims to Base32 encode, but the input schema contains 10 parameters unrelated to encoding (e.g., ref, url, city). It does not specify what input is encoded or what the output is. The title is null, so the description is the only purpose signal, and it is misleading and vague. It does not distinguish from siblings like 'calc-eval' or 'fetch-status'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool. The description mentions 'input discarded' but does not explain what the tool actually does with the inputs or when it should be invoked. No alternatives are named, and the multi-parameter schema suggests it might serve multiple purposes, but no context is provided.

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

All Base32 encode, input discarded 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