Skip to main content
Glama

info: URI namespace shape, value discarded

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

info-uri

info: URI namespace shape, value 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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only states 'value discarded', which hints that inputs are not used, but it does not explain what the tool actually does with the shape check, whether it returns a boolean, performs network calls, or has side effects. The parameter descriptions mention 'no disk access' and 'robots-respecting' but the main description adds little beyond that.

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 under-specified to the point of being a fragment, not a well-structured sentence. It lacks front-loaded action verbs and essential context. While it is concise, it is not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity—it provides almost no useful information.

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?

For a tool with 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the tool's overall purpose, return value, or operational context. The parameter descriptions are the only useful part, but they cannot compensate for the missing high-level description.

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 descriptions cover all 10 parameters with clear explanations (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'). The main description adds no additional parameter meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description neither improves nor detracts from parameter understanding.

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 'info: URI namespace shape, value discarded' is vague and misleading. It suggests the tool only checks info: URIs, but the schema lists 10 unrelated parameters (url, city, feed, etc.). There is no clear verb-resource statement, and the scope is ambiguous. It fails to differentiate from siblings like 'domain-shape' or 'normalize-url'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools. An agent has no way to decide if this is the right tool for a given task, especially given the broad parameter list.

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

All info: URI namespace shape, value 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