Skip to main content
Glama

UTF-16 BOM/length band, value discarded

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

utf16-ok

UTF-16 BOM/length band, 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

D1.4/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'value discarded,' which hints at one side effect but does not explain what the tool returns, whether it is read-only, or any constraints like boundedness or network usage. The schema's per-parameter descriptions mention 'discarded after the shape check' for some, but the tool-level description adds no behavioral context.

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, which could be seen as concise, but it is under-specified to the point of being uninformative. It lacks a front-loaded verb and any structuring that helps an agent quickly grasp the tool's role. Efficiency is poor because the brief text fails to convey essential meaning.

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?

This tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so a complete description is critical. The given text is entirely inadequate: it does not explain the tool's purpose, return type, how parameters are used, whether there are side effects, or any constraints. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool based on this description.

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. The description does not add any cross-parameter meaning or clarify how the 10 parameters relate to the UTF-16 concept. However, it also does not mislead; the phrase 'value discarded' is consistent with schema remarks on some params. The description adds no value beyond the schema, so I keep the baseline.

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 is a noun phrase 'UTF-16 BOM/length band, value discarded' with no verb or explicit action. It does not state what the tool does (e.g., check, validate, return a status), making it impossible for an agent to distinguish it from sibling validation tools like validate-json or browser-url-ok. This is barely more informative than a tautology.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any sibling or context in which the tool is appropriate, nor does it describe prerequisites or exclusions. An agent has no way to decide when to call this tool.

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

All UTF-16 BOM/length band, 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