Skip to main content
Glama

OpenAPI version key shape, body discarded

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

openapi-ok

OpenAPI version key shape, body 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

D1.4/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention side effects, network access, data persistence, discard semantics, or error handling. The phrase 'body discarded' is unexplained and the tool's actual behavior remains opaque.

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 extremely short (one clause) but is not appropriately concise because it omits essential information. It is not front-loaded with useful content and reads as a fragment rather than a meaningful explanation. This is under-specification, not good conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool does, what the parameters are for, what is returned, or any behavioral characteristics. An agent cannot call this tool correctly based on the provided description.

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 each parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, which aligns with the baseline of 3 for high coverage. However, because the tool's overall purpose is unclear, the schema descriptions do not help connect parameters to behavior.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose1/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'OpenAPI version key shape, body discarded' is cryptic and fails to state a clear verb-resource relationship. It does not say what the tool does, what input it expects, or what output it produces, making it nearly impossible for an agent to understand its purpose. It is not a tautology but is so vague that it provides no useful semantic content.

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 on when to use this tool versus any of the 30 sibling tools. No mention of context, prerequisites, or alternative tools. An agent has zero information to decide if this is the right tool for a task.

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

All OpenAPI version key shape, body 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