Skip to main content
Glama

GB18030 4-byte band, input discarded

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

gb18030-ok

GB18030 4-byte band, 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. First observed

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Input discarded' discloses a retention behavior, but the description says nothing about side effects, return values, error behavior, network access, or whether the tool is read-only. That is not enough for an agent to predict the outcome of a call.

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 text is short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks a main verb and is not a complete sentence, so it does not give the agent a clear target. There is no meaningful structure or separation of purpose from behavior.

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, the description leaves out nearly everything an agent needs: what the tool returns, what valid inputs look like, and when the tool should be invoked. The '4-byte band' hint is never tied to any parameter or expected outcome, making the description 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?

The schema has 100% description coverage across all 10 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, and the phrase 'input discarded' only repeats what the schema already says in each parameter's description.

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 is only the fragment 'GB18030 4-byte band, input discarded' and never states a verb or operation. It does not say whether the tool validates, checks, normalizes, or rejects input against the GB18030 4-byte range. It is too vague to distinguish from sibling shape/ok/shape 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 this tool versus the many sibling ok/shape tools. No when-to-use conditions, no alternatives, and no exclusion criteria are provided. A model must guess whether this is for validating characters, URLs, file paths, or something else entirely.

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

All GB18030 4-byte band, 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