Skip to main content
Glama

ISWC T- shape, value discarded

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

iswc-ok

ISWC T- 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

D1.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It only says the value is discarded; it does not state whether the tool performs network access, validation, or reading, nor does it describe errors, side effects, or return behavior. The per-parameter notes about 'no disk access' and robots-respecting hints are isolated fragments, not a coherent behavioral picture.

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?

Six words is concise, but this is under-specification rather than efficient summary. The description front-loads an obscure token ('ISWC T- shape') and omits the essential information an agent needs to select and invoke the tool.

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 ten optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. Even the core subject of the check is unclear, and nothing about return values or side effects is provided. The agent cannot safely or correctly invoke this tool from the given definition.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is nominally explained, but the description does not connect any of the ten optional parameters to the 'ISWC T- shape' concept. There is no 'code' or 'iswc' property, and the agent cannot discern which parameter to provide. The only added semantic is 'discarded', which is repeated in the schema already.

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 'ISWC T- shape, value discarded' is a cryptic fragment rather than a statement of what the tool does. It suggests a format check on an ISWC-like code and an absence of returned value, but it lacks an action verb and never tells the agent what it will get back. It also does not differentiate this tool from sibling shape checkers like jira-key-shape or wiki-title-ok.

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 about when to use iswc-ok, what input should be passed, or how it compares with alternatives. The description has no conditions, exclusions, or references to any sibling tool, leaving the agent without any routing information.

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

All ISWC T- 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