Skip to main content
Glama

Week-of-year 1-53 band

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

woy-ok

Week-of-year 1-53 band

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

D1.3/5.0
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 reveals nothing about side effects, return values, auth requirements, or what 'band' means. The parameter descriptions hint at validation/discarding behaviors, but the tool description does not corroborate or explain them, leaving the agent completely in the dark.

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, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks essential information such as the operation performed, expected input format, output, and usage context. Every word is wasted because it conveys no actionable detail.

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, and no annotations, the description is wholly inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool does, what inputs are meaningful, what the 'band' refers to, or what the agent should expect. The complexity demands a much richer description, and this provides essentially none.

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%, so each parameter has a description, but these descriptions are inconsistent with the tool's stated purpose. For example, 'discarded after the shape check' suggests validation, yet the tool description is about a week-of-year band. The parameter descriptions add some isolated meaning, but they do not cohere into a usable semantic model, and the tool description does not explain how the parameters relate to its function.

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 'Week-of-year 1-53 band' is a fragment that does not state a verb, resource, or clear function. It neither matches the tool name 'woy-ok' nor explains what the tool does with any of the 10 heterogeneous parameters. It is misleading because the parameters (URLs, JSON, paths, etc.) have no obvious connection to a week-of-year band.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its 30+ siblings. There is no mention of conditions, alternatives, or exclusions. The description provides zero context for selection.

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

All Week-of-year 1-53 band 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