Skip to main content
Glama

Utility 108

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

util-108

Small public utility for autonomous clients.

Input 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

D1.3/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it does not. It mentions some parameters are 'discarded' and 'no disk access' for path, but it never explains what the tool does, what side effects occur, what is returned, or any error behavior. The description is opaque and fails to meet the disclosure burden.

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 a single short sentence, but this is under-specification, not conciseness. It omits essential purpose and behavior information. There is no front-loading of critical facts because there are no facts to front-load.

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 a vague name, the description is wholly inadequate. An agent cannot determine what inputs to provide, what the tool returns, or how it relates to siblings. The definition provides essentially no operational context.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description, but those descriptions are minimal and cryptic (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). They name the concept but do not clarify how the parameter influences the tool's outcome or what 'shape check' means. The tool's overall purpose is unknown, so parameter semantics remain unclear despite the schema text.

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 a tautology – it restates the generic name 'util' without any verb, resource, or specific action. It does not differentiate from the 30 sibling tools like normalize-url, validate-json, or weather-hint, and the schema's 10 heterogeneous parameters suggest a catch-all, but no single purpose is stated.

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 sibling. The description gives no context, no conditions, and no exclusions. An agent cannot decide between util-108 and specific tools like normalize-url or validate-json based on this description.

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

All Utility 108 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