Skip to main content
Glama

Mach-O magic band, bytes discarded

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

macho-ok

Mach-O magic band, bytes 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

D1.9/5.0
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 offers the cryptic 'bytes discarded' plus per-parameter hints like 'no disk access' and 'robots-respecting.' It never explains whether the tool is read-only, what side effects occur, whether data leaves the environment, or what the response format is.

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 not in a useful way; it is under-specified rather than concise. It front-loads jargon instead of a clear summary, and every word ('Mach-O magic band') contributes to confusion rather than comprehension.

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 tool has 10 optional parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many closely related sibling tools. The one-line description is completely inadequate: an agent cannot determine whether to pass one parameter or many, what the return signal means, or why this tool exists alongside its siblings.

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%, and each parameter has a meaningful description, so the structured schema already carries the semantic load. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable and gives the baseline score.

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 'Mach-O magic band, bytes discarded' gestures at a Mach-O/magic-bytes concept but never states an action or outcome. It does not say what 'ok' means, what the tool returns, or that it is a shape/validity check, so the purpose remains essentially opaque and close to a restatement of the name.

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 macho-ok versus its many shape-related siblings such as file-path-ok, browser-url-ok, wiki-title-ok, validate-json, or normalize-url. The description does not mention conditions, exclusions, or alternatives in any way.

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

All Mach-O magic band, bytes 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