Skip to main content
Glama

ISO country NU

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

cc-nu

Public ISO 3166-1 record for NU.

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

D1.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but 'Public ISO 3166-1 record for NU' reveals almost nothing. It hints at read-only/public status, but does not say whether the call has side effects, what is discarded, how inputs are handled, or what the output shape looks like. The parameter descriptions do disclose side effects (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'), but that context is not in the tool description itself.

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—a single noun phrase with no wasted words—but it is under-specification rather than intentionally concise. A single vague sentence does not adequately label the tool's behavior or provide structure that helps an agent decide to invoke it.

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 and no output schema, so the description must explain enough to make the call meaningful. 'Public ISO 3166-1 record for NU' is severely incomplete: no use case, no return contract, no relationship between the generic parameters (url, city, feed, path, zone, query, website) to the stated purpose, and no mention of side effects. An agent could not confidently select this tool based on the description alone.

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%, with all 10 optional parameters individually documented, so the baseline of 3 applies. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameters and does not explain why a parameter like 'city' or 'query' belongs in a call to an 'ISO 3166-1 record' tool, but the schema itself is strong enough to set the baseline.

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 names a specific resource ('ISO 3166-1 record for NU') but does not state an action—there is no verb explaining what the tool does, returns, or validates. It also does not distinguish cc-nu from sibling tools like geo-hint, timezone, or validate-json, leaving the agent to guess how 'record' maps to the 10 supplied parameters.

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?

No usage guidance is provided: the description does not say when to call this tool, what problem it solves, or how it relates to any of the 30 sibling tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-tool pointers, so the agent must rely entirely on inference.

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

All ISO country NU 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