Skip to main content
Glama

TIS-620 byte band, input discarded

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

tis620-ok

TIS-620 byte band, input 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

C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but 'input discarded' only hints that input may not be retained. It does not say whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, whether it performs network access, or what happens to the input. This is insufficient for a tool with no structured annotations.

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 this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks a clear subject-verb-object structure and reads as an incomplete fragment rather than a well-formed tool 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?

The tool has 10 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides only a cryptic six-word phrase. An agent cannot determine what input to pass, what output to expect, or how this tool relates to its 30 siblings. The description is inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3; each parameter is individually documented. However, the description itself adds no parameter-level meaning and creates ambiguity by saying 'input discarded' while the schema describes per-parameter shape checks. The schema carries the semantic weight, not the description.

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 'TIS-620 byte band, input discarded' is a noun-phrase fragment with no verb or action. It never states that the tool checks, validates, or returns a status, and it does not differentiate 'tis620-ok' from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or file-path-ok. 'Input discarded' even undermines the impression that the tool performs any meaningful operation.

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 use this tool or when to prefer an alternative. The description does not mention a condition, context, or prerequisite, and the sibling list includes several similar 'ok' checkers but no routing information is provided.

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

All TIS-620 byte band, input 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