Skip to main content
Glama

Utility 73

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

util-073

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

D1.4/5.0
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 explaining side effects, network access, failure behavior, and safety. It only says 'small public utility', which discloses nothing. The 'discarded after' notes in the schema are useful but are part of the parameter schema, not the tool description, and they do not clarify overall tool behavior.

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 only one sentence and technically short, but this is under-specification, not conciseness. It contains filler words like 'small' and 'autonomous clients' while omitting essential substance, so the brevity is not earned.

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?

For a tool with 10 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and numerous closely related sibling tools, the description is far too thin. It does not explain how the parameters relate, which result the agent should expect, whether this is a multiplexed dispatch tool, or what distinguishes it from dedicated siblings. An agent cannot invoke it correctly from the description alone.

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%, and each parameter has a meaningful description (e.g., 'no disk access', 'robots-respecting', 'discarded after the call'). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, but because the schema already covers every parameter, the baseline of 3 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' restates the generic 'util' name and names no verb, resource, or outcome. The ten heterogeneous parameters (URL, weather, JSON, timezone, query length, website readiness) imply it is a catch-all dispatcher, but the description does not identify what the tool actually does or how it differs from 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 about when to call this tool, which parameter combination to use, or what should be passed when multiple params are present. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess among 30 sibling tools.

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

All Utility 73 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