Skip to main content
Glama

ISO country SG

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

cc-sg

Public ISO 3166-1 record for SG.

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

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, but 'Public ISO 3166-1 record for SG' only hints that this is a read-only data item. It does not disclose what happens when any of the ten parameters are supplied, whether the tool returns the record, or what side effects or limits exist.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one short sentence and is front-loaded with the core subject. It is concise but under-specified for a tool with ten optional parameters and no annotations, so it is not fully appropriate in substance.

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?

Given ten parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The description does not explain the tool's return value, the role of the parameters, or how this tool relates to the broader sibling suite.

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?

The input schema describes all ten parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and, in fact, does not explain why the schema includes parameters such as 'url', 'json', 'query', or 'website'; it neither helps nor contradicts the schema's parameter explanations.

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—'Public ISO 3166-1 record for SG'—so an agent can tell this relates to Singapore's country-code record. However, it lacks a verb or action, so it is unclear whether the tool returns the record, validates it, or merely represents a static constant. It also does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'iana-zones' or 'geo-hint'.

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-sg versus alternatives. The description gives no usage context, no exclusions, and no mention of sibling tools, so an agent cannot decide between this and related country/timezone tools.

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

All ISO country SG 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