Skip to main content
Glama

HTTP 307 temporary-redirect

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewAdmin

compatibility

Show how this request is classified. No identifiers are retained.

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / city
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / feed
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / path
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "File path to check; no disk access",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / query
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Search text; discarded after the length check",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / ref
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Git ref name; discarded after the shape check",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The phrase 'No identifiers are retained' provides a meaningful privacy guarantee, and 'Show' implies a read-only operation. However, with no annotations, the description should also disclose input handling and output behavior; it only partially does so, leaving the classification result undefined.

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 and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. One vague sentence does not earn its place for a tool with four optional parameters and no output schema.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what the classification result looks like and how to interpret it. It does not state the classification criteria, nor the relationship among the four optional parameters, leaving an agent unable to confidently invoke the tool or understand its response.

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. The description adds no extra meaning about how url, host, json, and zone relate or which parameters are alternatives versus combinable, but the schema already documents each parameter adequately.

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 says 'Show how this request is classified' but never defines what classification means, what categories exist, or what 'compatibility' refers to. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like citation or domain-shape, and an agent cannot tell what this tool actually determines.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or typical use cases. The only hints come from parameter names, which is not sufficient for routing.

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

All HTTP 307 temporary-redirect toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources