Skip to main content
Glama

Cap'n Proto segment count, body discarded

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

capnp-ok

Cap'n Proto segment count, body 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

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only says 'body discarded'. The parameter schema adds useful notes like 'no disk access' and 'discarded after the check', but the tool-level description does not disclose side effects, output semantics, network behavior, or whether any input is retained beyond the call.

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 only five words, the description is terse, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. The two fragments do not form a clear sentence, do not front-load the action, and leave the input schema to carry nearly all meaning.

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 heterogeneous optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far from complete. It does not explain which parameter(s) to pass, what result is returned, how 'segment count' relates to the available fields, or what 'ok' means for invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; each parameter already has a meaningful description in the schema. The tool-level description adds no parameter-specific semantics, though the schema itself explains formats and discard behavior for fields like website, path, and json.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description hints at a Cap'n Proto-specific operation with 'Cap'n Proto segment count' and 'body discarded', but it lacks a verb or explicit statement of what the tool does, returns, or checks. It is not a tautology, but it is vague enough that an agent cannot confidently tell whether this counts segments, validates them, or returns an OK status.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 versus siblings like browser-url-ok, file-path-ok, validate-json, or other shape/ok tools. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are provided, so an agent must guess from the name alone.

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

All Cap'n Proto segment count, body 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