Skip to main content
Glama

Utility 10

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

util-010

Small public utility for autonomous clients.

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 side effects, data handling, safety, or limitations. It is silent on all of these. The only behavioral hints appear in the input schema parameter descriptions (e.g., 'discarded', 'no disk access'), but those are structured data, not part of the tool description, and the description itself discloses nothing.

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 one short sentence, so it is not verbose. However, it is under-specified: the sentence does not earn its place because it provides no actionable information. True conciseness requires packing meaning tightly, not merely writing too little.

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 optional parameters that appear to cover wildly different functions (weather, timezone, URL normalization, JSON validation, website checks, etc.), yet the description gives no indication of how they combine or what the tool actually returns. With no output schema, no annotations, and no usage context, the description is completely inadequate for an autonomous agent.

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 semantics. The schema already describes each of the 10 parameters well enough (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'), so this area is adequately covered by structured data. The description does not add value, but the baseline holds.

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 'Small public utility for autonomous clients' names no verb, resource, or domain. It is essentially a placeholder that says 'utility' without stating what it does, and it does nothing to distinguish this tool from its many specific siblings like normalize-url, validate-json, or weather-hint.

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 any of the 30+ sibling tools. No context, no alternative names, no conditions or exclusions are provided. An agent cannot tell if this is a general fallback or a specific-purpose helper.

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

All Utility 10 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