Skip to main content
Glama

ISO country CV

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

cc-cv

Public ISO 3166-1 record for CV.

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. Added

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosing side effects, permissions, and return behavior, and it says only 'Public' and 'record'. It does not mention whether inputs are used, ignored, or discarded, and it gives no clue about output shape. The schema's 'discarded' notes are informative but are part of the parameter schema, not the tool description.

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 only six words and contains no filler, but it is under-specified for a tool with ten parameters and no output schema. It is concise in length yet not appropriately sized because it omits essential operational context. This is under-specification rather than efficient structure.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The definition lacks an output schema and annotations, and the description does not say what the tool returns, when to call it, or what the relationship is between the CV record and the accepted parameters. The parameter descriptions partially compensate for individual arguments, but the agent still cannot predict the call result. The tool's overall behavior remains incomplete.

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 parameters are already documented individually with clear semantics. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning and does not explain why a CV record tool accepts parameters like website, feed, or json. Per the baseline rule, a 3 is appropriate because the schema does the work.

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 identifies a specific resource (the ISO 3166-1 record for CV) but uses no verb, so it never states what the tool actually does with that record. It does not explain how the ten input parameters relate to the record, leaving the agent to guess whether this is a lookup, a validation, or something else. This is clearer than a tautology but still vague enough to warrant a middle score.

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 cc-cv versus any sibling tool. It does not state alternatives, exclusions, or the context in which the CV record is needed. The agent is left with no criteria for selection beyond the tool name and the bare description.

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

All ISO country CV 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