Skip to main content
Glama

Utility 71

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

util-071

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. Added

TDQS

D1.5/5.0
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. It only hints at 'discarded after' and 'no disk access' in parameter descriptions, but the main description does not state side effects, safety guarantees (non-destructive, read-only), or other behaviors. The parameter descriptions add some transparency, but overall this is inadequate for a tool with 10 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 short (6 words), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. For a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, a single sentence is not enough. It is not front-loaded with key information because it has no substantive content.

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 appears to be an amalgamation of many distinct utilities (URL normalization, weather, timezone, JSON validation, etc.) without any unifying explanation. The description does not explain how parameters interact, what the tool returns, or how it relates to siblings. For such a complex and ambiguous tool, this is completely inadequate.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning; it does not clarify relationships between parameters, which combination is expected, or when to use which. Even though baseline for 100% coverage is 3, the description fails to add any value or context beyond the schema, so a 2 is appropriate.

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" is extremely vague and does not state a specific action or resource. It is nearly a tautology of the tool name, failing to indicate what the tool does beyond being a catch-all utility.

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 28 sibling tools. Given the tool accepts many different parameter types (URL, city, JSON, etc.), it overlaps with several siblings (normalize-url, weather-hint, validate-json, etc.), yet the description does not differentiate or advise on selection.

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

All Utility 71 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