Skip to main content
Glama

SemVer shape

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

semver-ok

SemVer shape

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'SemVer shape' gives no information about return values, side effects, network use, persistence, or error behavior. Behavioral hints like 'discarded after the shape check' and 'no disk access' exist only in parameter descriptions, not in the tool description itself.

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 very short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. Two words cannot carry the behavioral and parameter context needed for a 10-parameter tool, so the brevity does not serve the agent.

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?

Given the complexity of a 10-parameter schema with zero required fields, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too incomplete. The agent cannot determine what input to provide, what the tool returns, or what 'SemVer shape' applies to, making correct invocation unlikely.

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 baseline is 3 even though the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning. However, the description fails to identify which of the 10 optional parameters is meant to hold a SemVer value, and none of the parameter names resemble a version string, leaving the relationship between the tool and its parameters unclear.

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 'SemVer shape' is a noun phrase with no verb, so it never states what the tool actually does (validate? normalize? extract?). It names a domain and roughly echoes the tool name 'semver-ok', but an agent cannot tell the operation or how to invoke it without guessing.

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 on when to use semver-ok versus sibling tools like github-repo-shape, domain-shape, wiki-title-ok, or jira-key-shape. No conditions, prerequisites, or alternative tools are mentioned, so the agent must infer usage solely from the name.

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

All SemVer shape 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