Skip to main content
Glama

FNV-1 hex, input discarded

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

fnv1-ok

FNV-1 hex, input discarded

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, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only says 'input discarded.' This hints at statelessness, but does not disclose the return value, whether network or disk access occurs, side effects, or safety profile. The word 'discarded' also merely echoes the per-parameter schema descriptions that already say inputs are discarded.

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?

At four words, the description has zero redundancy, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. For a tool with 10 parameters, a single fragment is not an appropriately sized description, and 'FNV-1' merely restates the name.

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?

A 10-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 29 similar siblings needs far more context than 'FNV-1 hex, input discarded.' An agent cannot determine what input to pass, what the tool returns, or how it differs from sibling validation tools, making the definition inadequate.

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 baseline is 3. All 10 parameters are individually documented in the schema, and the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond it. The description also fails to clarify which of the 10 diverse parameters is actually the subject of the FNV-1 operation, but the schema descriptions themselves carry the weight.

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?

"FNV-1 hex, input discarded" is a fragment that restates the tool name (FNV-1) and never states a verb or what the tool actually does. It is unclear whether the tool computes an FNV-1 hash, validates one, or returns a boolean 'ok' check; the mention of 'hex' hints at output format but does not identify the operation or the resource it acts on.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus its 29 siblings, many of which are similar shape/validation checks (domain-shape, browser-url-ok, jira-key-shape, validate-json). No conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool names are provided, so an agent cannot route to it correctly.

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

All FNV-1 hex, input discarded 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