Skip to main content
Glama

multihash prefix shape, value discarded

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

multihash-ok

multihash prefix 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

C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, but it only says 'value discarded' and does not disclose return behavior, errors, or side effects. The property descriptions actually conflict with the 'value discarded' claim by implying real processing, e.g., website is 'to check for agent readiness' and url is 'to normalize or cite.'

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?

At only six words, the description is short but under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It restates the name and omits necessary usage and behavioral details, so the brevity is a deficit.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 10 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description does not explain whether one or multiple parameters should be supplied, what the tool returns, or how the parameters relate to the 'multihash prefix shape' concept. The property descriptions fill some semantic gaps but do not make the overall behavior usable.

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 input schema already documents the parameters and their intended meanings. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level semantics, but because coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies; the individual property descriptions are detailed.

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 bare noun phrase with no verb: 'multihash prefix shape' essentially restates the name 'multihash-ok' and never says whether the tool validates, transforms, or returns anything. The ten unrelated optional parameters make the intended resource unclear, and it is not distinguished from sibling shape tools like domain-shape, figma-url-shape, or file-path-ok.

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?

No tool-level guidance is given about when to use multihash-ok versus any sibling such as browser-url-ok, normalize-url, validate-json, or domain-shape. The property descriptions hint at individual use cases, but there is no condition, prerequisite, or exclusion that would help an agent choose this tool.

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

All multihash prefix 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