Skip to main content
Glama

ISO country MS

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

cc-ms

Public ISO 3166-1 record for MS.

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

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'Public record' weakly implies a read-only, unauthenticated lookup, but the description says nothing about side effects, network access, output shape, or the fact that several parameters are explicitly discarded. This falls short of the transparency burden for an unannotated tool.

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 single sentence is short but not effectively concise: it omits the action, behavior, and parameter relevance. This is under-specification rather than stripped-down clarity, so it does not earn high marks for conciseness.

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 output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what input pattern is expected, what the tool returns, or why it accepts url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query, website, and ref.

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 each parameter is individually documented in the schema. However, the tool description adds no meaning that connects these ten heterogeneous parameters (path, zone, json, website, etc.) to an ISO 3166-1 record, leaving an agent unsure which parameters are actually relevant to the tool's stated purpose.

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 names a specific resource ('ISO 3166-1 record') and subject ('MS'), giving an agent a rough idea of what the tool is about. However, it lacks a verb—it never states what the tool does with the record, such as returning, validating, or checking it—and it does not distinguish this tool from the many sibling reference/check tools.

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 about when to use cc-ms instead of alternatives like domain-shape, geo-hint, or normalize-url. No conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites are given, and the agent is left to infer usage from the unrelated-looking 10-parameter schema.

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

All ISO country MS 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