Skip to main content
Glama

ISBN URN shape, value discarded

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

isbn-uri

ISBN URN 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

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'value discarded,' which hints that inputs are not retained, but it does not explain side effects, return behavior, error handling, or why the schema accepts ten unrelated-looking parameters. Security and side-effect behavior are effectively undisclosed.

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 very short with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. For a tool with ten parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a six-word fragment omits essential information and is not a model of effective structure.

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?

The schema provides rich parameter descriptions, but the tool-level description leaves the operation, return value, and selection criteria unexplained. An agent still cannot confidently know what isbn-uri returns, what inputs are meaningful, or how it differs from closely related sibling tools.

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 schema already documents all parameters and earns the baseline score. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, and although the schema descriptions are unusual and partly unrelated to ISBN URIs, the description does not need to compensate under the baseline rule.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The phrase 'ISBN URN shape, value discarded' hints that the tool checks whether input has the shape of an ISBN URI, but it lacks a verb such as 'validate', 'normalize', or 'check.' It is more than a tautology because 'shape' and 'value discarded' add some meaning, yet it remains vague and does not explicitly state what the tool does.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling shape/validation tools such as domain-shape, figma-url-shape, or jira-key-shape. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or conditions that should route an agent here.

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

All ISBN URN 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