Skip to main content
Glama

X-Forwarded-For comma count, value discarded

by io.github.sadri-dridi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

xff-count

X-Forwarded-For comma count, value discarded

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

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The phrase 'value discarded' is a useful behavioral hint, and no annotations are present to compensate. Still, the description does not disclose whether the call is read-only, whether it accesses any network or disk resources, what exactly is returned, or what side effects (if any) occur. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and only partially meets it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded with the operation, containing no fluff. But it is so terse that it omits essential context such as input selection and return behavior, making it under-specified rather than just concise.

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, this description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine which parameter to populate, what the count represents, what format the result takes, or whether any side effects occur. The description is not adequate for correct invocation.

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 parameters are individually described, meeting the high-coverage baseline. However, the top-level description adds no parameter-level meaning: it fails to identify which parameter should hold the X-Forwarded-For string or how the ten unrelated optional parameters relate to the tool's core operation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description expands the cryptic name into 'X-Forwarded-For comma count' and adds that the value is discarded, so a reader can infer the tool counts commas in an X-Forwarded-For-style value. However, it does not specify which of the ten schema parameters carries that value, and it does not differentiate this from sibling count/len tools like hn-front-count, memory-key-count, or search-query-len.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling counting and validation tools. The description neither states conditions for use nor names alternatives, leaving the agent to guess which scenario calls for xff-count.

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

All X-Forwarded-For comma count, value discarded 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