Skip to main content
Glama

Bech32 id hrp shape, value discarded

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

bech-id

Bech32 id hrp shape, value 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

D1.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The phrase 'value discarded' is a useful behavioral disclosure indicating that input values are not retained or used. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not disclose whether the tool makes network calls, returns a boolean, throws errors, or performs any side effects. The nature of the 'shape' check is never explained.

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?

At six words, the description is extremely under-specified rather than appropriately concise. There is no verb, no subject, and no structure that helps an agent parse the intended operation. A truly concise description would state the action and scope in a complete sentence or two.

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?

With 10 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain what inputs are expected in practice, what the response format is, how it parallels sibling shape-checking tools, or what 'discarded' means for the call's result. An agent lacks essential context to invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter description (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check') is clear about semantics and disposal. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, and its 'Bech32 id' reference does not map to any schema property, which could confuse an agent. The schema carries the full burden, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 is a cryptic noun fragment ('Bech32 id hrp shape, value discarded') with no verb, so it does not clearly state what the tool does. It hints at Bech32 ID format validation, but the schema exposes 10 unrelated optional string parameters (url, city, feed, host, json, etc.), creating a mismatch. An agent cannot reliably tell whether this is a Bech32-only checker or a general shape validator.

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 about when to use this tool versus any of the 31 sibling tools. No context, conditions, alternatives, or exclusions are given. Given the broad schema and many sibling shape-checkers (domain-shape, figma-url-shape, validate-json), an agent has no factual basis for choosing this tool.

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

All Bech32 id hrp shape, value 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