Skip to main content
Glama

Utility 90

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

util-090

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure—and it discloses nothing. It doesn't mention side effects, network access, rate limits, or the dispatch behavior when multiple parameters are supplied; the only behavioral hints ('discarded after', 'no disk access') live in the schema, not the description, and the description itself earns no credit for them.

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 six-word sentence is superficially concise, but this is under-specification, not economy: it contains no substantive claim about behavior, inputs, or outputs. Every word is wasted because none of it helps an agent decide to call the tool.

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 annotations, and no output schema, the description is radically incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's unified purpose, the expected relationship among parameters, what the tool returns, or any constraints—leaving an agent unable to invoke it correctly in any realistic scenario.

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 description adds nothing about parameters. Each of the 10 parameters has a schema-level description, but the overall description never hints at which parameter an agent should populate or how multiple values are handled, which is a real gap for a dispatcher-shaped tool.

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' never states what the tool actually does—there is no verb plus resource, and 'utility' merely restates the tool's name. With 10 parameters spanning git refs, URLs, cities, JSON, timezones, and websites, the agent cannot determine the tool's function or distinguish it from the 29 specialized siblings.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like validate-json, normalize-url, weather-hint, timezone, or search-query-len. An agent has no basis for selecting this catch-all tool over the dedicated alternatives that apparently overlap with its parameter surface.

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

All Utility 90 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