Skip to main content
Glama

Language wo

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

lang-wo

ISO 639 language tag wo.

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
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it says nothing about side effects, return values, safety, or what happens on invocation. The schema parameters hint at 'shape check' and 'discarded' semantics, but those are structured fields, not description content — the description itself discloses zero behavior.

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?

Five words is under-specification, not conciseness, for a tool with 10 parameters and no annotations or output schema. The brevity earns no credit because it carries no actionable information — there is no structure to front-load when the description conveys no content beyond the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and 10 loosely related optional parameters, the description leaves the tool's contract entirely unexplained. An agent cannot predict what a call returns, what input it should pass, or even what the language tag has to do with the permitted parameters — the definition is inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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% (all 10 parameters have individual descriptions), so the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description. The description adds nothing to parameter understanding and actually creates a mismatch: it names a language tag while none of the parameters (ref, url, city, zone, query, website) relate to language.

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 'ISO 639 language tag wo' identifies 'wo' as a language tag (Wolof) but states no verb or action — it does not say whether the tool returns, validates, or filters the tag. This is essentially a restatement of the name 'lang-wo' with an ISO 639 qualifier, and it does nothing to distinguish the tool from its 30 siblings.

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?

The description contains no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance whatsoever. An agent facing 30 sibling tools gets zero signal about when lang-wo is the right choice or how it relates to similar-looking tools like cite, normalize-url, or validate-json.

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

All Language wo 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