Skip to main content
Glama

LEEF attr count, line discarded

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

leef-ok

LEEF attr count, line 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
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior directly. 'line discarded' hints at data disposal but is vague and unexplained; there is no statement about return values, side effects, persistence, authentication, rate limits, or failure behavior. The description fails to carry the behavioral disclosure burden.

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 short, but it is truncated and cryptic rather than concise. 'LEEF attr count, line discarded' does not front-load a useful purpose statement and provides little information per word.

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?

This is a 10-parameter tool with no required parametersasi and no output schema, yet the description explains none of the overall workflow, the meaning of LEEF, the expected result, or why parameters are discarded. The description is entirely inadequate for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description itself adds nothing about parameters. The schema descriptions already document each of the 10 optional string parameters; the tool description does not add semantic value beyond a generic 'discarded' hint.

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 'LEEF attr count, line discarded' gives no verb or clear resource. 'LEEF' is unexplained, 'attr count' could be a noun phrase or an operation, and 'line discarded' is an ambiguous side effect rather than a statement of what the tool does. It does not distinguish this tool from the many sibling shape-checkers.

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 indication of when to use this tool or when to prefer a sibling. With 29 sibling tools covering distinct shapes and checks, the absence of any usage guidance leaves an agent unable to decide whether leef-ok applies.

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

All LEEF attr count, line 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