Skip to main content
Glama

Rods to meters, number discarded

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

rod-m

Rods to meters, number 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

D1.6/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It completely fails to mention that the tool performs validation or checks, that it discards values (per schemas), or that it makes network requests. It even opens with a misleading 'number discarded' phrase that could imply a mathematical conversion.

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

Conciseness1/5

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

The description is extremely short but under-specifies, not concise in a meaningful way. It lacks structure, does not mention the tool's polymorphic nature, and omits critical information that would require multiple sentences to convey. The one-line description is not earning its place.

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's high complexity with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's polymorphic behavior, when each parameter is appropriate, or what happens on success/failure. The schemas provide some context, but the description fails to tie them together.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for all 10 parameters, and each parameter's description adds meaningful context (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check', 'no disk access', 'robots-respecting'). The schema does the heavy lifting, and the description adds no additional value beyond what is already in the schema, but a baseline of 3 would be understated given the rich parameter descriptions. I assign 5 because the parameter descriptions are exceptionally detailed and self-sufficient.

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 'Rods to meters, number discarded' is a tautology of the tool name and provides no actual purpose. It does not mention validation, URL normalization, or any of the 10 parameters, and does not distinguish from siblings like 'normalize-url' or 'domain-shape'.

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+ siblings. The description gives no context, no examples, and no indication of which parameter to use or when.

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

All Rods to meters, number 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