Skip to main content
Glama

IPv4 shape, address discarded

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

ipv4-ok

IPv4 shape, address 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

D1.3/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'address discarded' (which implies input is not retained) but provides no information about return values, side effects, security considerations, or validation behavior. This is grossly insufficient for a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema.

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

Conciseness1/5

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

The description is extremely short, but it is not effectively concise. It is a cryptic fragment that omits essential information. Conciseness should preserve clarity while removing redundancy; here, the brevity sacrifices meaning entirely, making the description under-specified rather than efficient.

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 required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain the tool's core function, the purpose of any parameter, or what constitutes a successful invocation. An agent cannot use this tool correctly based on the given information.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description does not reference any of the 10 parameters or explain how they relate to the tool's purpose. Even though schema coverage is 100%, each parameter description is generic and does not connect to IPv4 validation. The description adds zero value in helping an agent map inputs to the operation; it is completely disconnected from the schema.

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 'IPv4 shape, address discarded' hints at validating IPv4 format and discarding the address, but it never identifies which input parameter contains the IPv4 address. The name suggests a check, but the description is too vague to distinguish it from other shape-checking siblings like domain-shape or file-path-ok. It is not a pure tautology, but it fails to state the operation clearly.

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 on when to use this tool, what conditions favor it, or how it differs from alternatives. The description does not mention any comparison to sibling tools or provide context for selection. An agent has no basis to decide when to invoke this tool.

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

All IPv4 shape, address 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