Skip to main content
Glama

TeX control-word count, body discarded

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

tex-ok

TeX control-word count, body 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

D1.5/5.0
Behavior1/5

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. It only says 'body discarded', which is ambiguous and fails to explain side effects, data access, output format, or safety. It does not clarify what happens to inputs like 'ref' or 'website', and the 'discarded' hints are inconsistent across parameters.

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 concise (one short sentence), which meets the front-loaded criterion, but it is not effective conciseness—it omits essential information. The brevity is not purposeful; it sacrifices clarity for minimalism. There is no structure to guide the agent.

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?

With 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is entirely inadequate. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or how inputs are used. An agent cannot determine how to call this tool correctly or what to expect from it. The 'body discarded' phrase is meaningless without context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the tool description 'TeX control-word count' does not help map any of the 10 heterogeneous parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query, website) to that purpose. In fact, it creates confusion—none of the parameters are TeX-related. The description adds no semantic value and actively misleads about how parameters are used.

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 states 'TeX control-word count, body discarded', which gives a vague hint at counting control words in TeX, but does not identify the resource, input method, or what 'body' refers to. It is not a clear verb+resource specification and does not distinguish it from siblings like fetch-status or web-fetch. The title 'tex-ok' adds little, and the description is cryptic rather than explanatory.

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 alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or examples. The sibling list includes many plausible alternatives (e.g., fetch-status, web-fetch, validate-json), but the description gives zero context on selecting this tool.

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

All TeX control-word count, body 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