Skip to main content
Glama

ISO country MK

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

cc-mk

Public ISO 3166-1 record for MK.

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

C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it reveals almost nothing. The schema parameter descriptions hint at behaviors (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check', 'no disk access', 'robots-respecting'), but the tool description itself does not explain what happens during the call, what side effects exist, or what the return value is. The 'Public ISO 3166-1 record' phrase suggests a static lookup, but the parameters imply validation and checking behaviors that are not disclosed.

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 short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. A single sentence that does not explain the tool's function is not effective. The schema parameter descriptions contain useful behavioral hints (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check', 'no disk access'), but these are not surfaced in the main description, and the description does not front-load any actionable guidance.

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?

This is a 10-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a one-line description that fails to explain its purpose. The parameter list is heterogeneous and suggests multiple possible behaviors (URL normalization, JSON validation, file path checking, timezone lookup, website readiness checks), but the description does not unify them. An agent has no way to know what inputs are relevant, what the tool returns, or how it relates to the 30 sibling tools. This is severely 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 schema already documents all 10 parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. However, the tool description's phrase 'Public ISO 3166-1 record' does not help an agent understand why it would pass a URL, city, feed, host, JSON, path, zone, query, or website to this tool. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema is complete, but the description fails to connect the parameters to the tool's purpose.

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 'Public ISO 3166-1 record for MK.' is extremely terse and does not state a verb or action. It reads as a data record rather than a tool call, and it does not distinguish itself from the many sibling tools that check shapes, fetch statuses, or validate inputs. The name 'cc-mk' suggests country-code lookup for North Macedonia, but the description does not clarify what the tool actually does with the provided parameters.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools. The schema parameters are diverse (URLs, city, feed, host, JSON, path, zone, query, website), which makes the intended use case even more ambiguous. An agent cannot determine when to select this tool over siblings like 'normalize-url', 'validate-json', 'geo-hint', or 'iana-zones'.

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

All ISO country MK 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