Skip to main content
Glama

Port 22

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewAdmin

compatibility

Show how this request is classified. No identifiers are retained.

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / city
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / feed
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / path
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "File path to check; no disk access",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / query
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Search text; discarded after the length check",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / ref
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Git ref name; discarded after the shape check",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one meaningful trait—'No identifiers are retained'—but does not explain side effects, request handling, failure behavior, or what the classification output looks like.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the privacy guarantee is placed efficiently after the main action. However, the first sentence's vagueness slightly reduces the value of that efficiency.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin to tell an agent what to supply, what result to expect, or how the parameters relate to the classification. The missing return semantics and ambiguous purpose make it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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?

The schema already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about how url, host, json, and zone are used or combined in the compatibility classification.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states a verb and object ('Show how this request is classified') but never defines what 'compatibility' means or what classification dimensions are involved. It is not a tautology, yet it remains vague and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like validate_json or normalize_url.

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 about when to use this tool versus its siblings, and no exclusions or alternative routes are mentioned. The only contextual hint is 'No identifiers are retained,' which addresses privacy, not usage conditions.

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

All Port 22 toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources