Skip to main content
Glama

SSH fingerprint hex shape, value discarded

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

ssh-fp-ok

SSH fingerprint hex shape, value 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

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that the value is discarded, but says nothing about return semantics, invalid-input behavior, or side effects. The schema's 'no disk access' and website-fetching hints are parameter-level and even conflict with a pure SSH fingerprint shape check, leaving the tool's behavior under-specified.

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?

The description is very short and front-loads the core concept with no filler. It loses a point for being a fragmented noun phrase rather than a complete sentence, but it is efficient and every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, yet the description does not clarify the invocation contract (which argument receives the candidate fingerprint) or the expected return semantics. Given the ambiguous 10-parameter schema, the description is not complete enough for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Although every parameter has a schema description (100% coverage), the tool description does not map any parameter to the SSH fingerprint value being checked. The ten optional parameters are semantically unrelated to fingerprints, and with additionalProperties: false the agent cannot infer which parameter to populate, undermining the baseline 3 that high schema coverage normally provides.

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 names a target concept ('SSH fingerprint hex shape') and implies a predicate check, but it lacks an explicit verb such as 'validate' or 'check'. It is not a tautology and does distinguish from sibling shape-check tools by topic, but the meaning is only inferable and the 10 unrelated schema parameters make the intent murky.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'SSH fingerprint hex shape' indirectly tells an agent this tool is for verifying SSH fingerprint shape. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling shape/URL/domain tools or provide exclusions, so the usage guidance is merely implied rather than explicit.

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

All SSH fingerprint hex shape, value 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