Skip to main content
Glama

Language zu

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

lang-zu

ISO 639 language tag zu.

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

D1.9/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing: no side effects, determinism, failure behavior, or access constraints. The only behavioral hints (e.g., 'no disk access', 'discarded after the shape check') live in the input schema, not in the tool description, which adds zero value beyond the structured fields.

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 five-word fragment is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — there is no substantive content to trim or front-load. The structure is minimal to the point of being uninformative.

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 and no annotations, the definition must tell an agent what to send and what to expect back; a single phrase naming 'zu' does neither. Even the schema's thorough per-parameter documentation cannot compensate for the missing statement of action, return value, and selection criteria.

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 baseline is 3. The description vaguely suggests that one of the ten generic string parameters should carry an ISO 639 tag, but it never names which parameter, so it does not meaningfully resolve the ambiguity among ref, query, url, or the other seven.

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 is a noun phrase — 'ISO 639 language tag zu.' — with no verb telling the agent what the tool does. It identifies the subject matter (the ISO 639 tag 'zu') but never states whether the tool validates, returns, or transforms it, leaving the action ambiguous even though sibling names (file-path-ok, wiki-title-ok) hint at a shape-check family.

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?

There is no guidance on when to invoke this tool versus its ~30 siblings. In a family dense with checkers (validate-json, file-path-ok, browser-url-ok, normalize-url), no selection criteria, exclusions, or alternative references are given.

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

All Language zu 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