Rison token charset, body discarded

rison-ok

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "rison-ok"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ref`	No	Git ref name; discarded after the shape check
`url`	No	HTTPS URL to normalize or cite
`city`	No	City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call
`feed`	No	Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded
`host`	No	Public hostname
`json`	No	JSON text to validate; discarded after the check
`path`	No	File path to check; no disk access
`zone`	No	IANA timezone name
`query`	No	Search text; discarded after the length check
`website`	No	Public 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.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 23, 2026

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"
+}

First observedSep 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

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. The phrase "body discarded" and per-parameter notes like "discarded after the shape check" imply a stateless, non-mutating check, which is useful. However, the description never explains what the tool returns, whether errors are raised, whether network access occurs, or what "Rison" token charset means in practice.

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 but not effectively concise: it is cryptic rather than informative. A five-word fragment for a tool with 10 heterogeneous parameters does not earn its place as a usable definition.

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 10 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It omits return value shape, behavior details, error semantics, and any context about the Rison format, leaving an agent unable to confidently invoke or interpret the tool without external knowledge.

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 already conveys its role and discard behavior. The tool description adds little beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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, "Rison token charset, body discarded," is a fragment rather than a clear verb+resource statement. It does not state that the tool validates, checks, or returns anything, and relies on the tool name to imply its purpose. It does not meaningfully distinguish itself from the many sibling shape/ok siblings.

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 prefer rison-ok over related tools like domain-shape or validate-json. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools are mentioned, so an agent has to infer usage from the name and parameter list.

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

All Rison token charset, body discarded tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.