Skip to main content
Glama

Buscar tipo MIME

mime-lookup
Read-onlyIdempotent

Busca el tipo MIME de un archivo o extensión, o las extensiones de un tipo MIME (tabla de ~130 tipos). Cuándo: hay que leer, construir o revisar con exactitud una URL, una cabecera HTTP, un token, una versión, un rango de IP, un documento HTML o Markdown o un archivo para agentes. No para: analizar Content-Type en tipo, subtipo, sufijo (content-type-parse). Efectos secundarios: ninguno (solo lectura, sin red, sin estado guardado). Determinista: la misma entrada da la misma salida. Límites: entrada JSON de hasta 64 KB, 1 s por llamada, resultado de hasta 1 MB.

EN: Looks up the MIME type for a file name or extension, or the common extensions for a MIME type, from a built-in table of about 130 types; also says whether the type is text-like. When: a URL, HTTP header, token, version string, IP range, HTML or Markdown document or agent-readiness file has to be parsed, built or checked exactly. [EN completo / full EN: inputSchema.description]

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesFile name, extension (.png) or MIME type (image/png) (string; required; up to 300 chars).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mimeNo
textNo
knownNo
extensionsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / query / examples
      Added value: +[
      +  "report.final.PDF"
      +]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / description
      Added value: +"EN: Looks up the MIME type for a file name or extension, or the common extensions for a MIME type, from a built-in table of about 130 types; also says whether the type is text-like. When: a URL, HTTP header, token, version string, IP range, HTML or Markdown document or agent-readiness file has to be parsed, built or checked exactly. Not for: parsing a Content-Type / media type header into type, subtype, structured-syntax suffix (content-type-parse). Side effects: none (read-only, no network access, no stored state). Deterministic: the same input gives the same output. Limits: JSON input up to 64 KB, 1 s per call, result up to 1 MB."
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, yet the description still adds material facts: no network access, no persisted state, determinism (same input → same output) and concrete limits (64 KB input, 1 s per call, 1 MB result). These are exactly the operational constraints an agent needs before calling and cannot be inferred from the hints.

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 purpose sentence and the effects/limits block are tight and front-loaded, but the 'Cuándo' list enumerating tokens, IP ranges, versions and agent-readiness files is noise for a MIME table and dilutes the signal. The description also carries a full Spanish block plus an English restatement, roughly doubling the reading cost.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter, table-backed lookup with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the definition supplies everything needed: what it resolves, in which direction, what it does not do, that it is side-effect-free and deterministic, and its limits. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'query' parameter already documents the accepted forms with an example ('report.final.PDF'), so the description's mention of 'archivo o extensión' or 'tipo MIME' mostly restates the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource plus both lookup directions (file name/extension → MIME, MIME → extensions) and the size of the built-in table, which tells the agent exactly what the tool knows. It also names the sibling it is not (content-type-parse), so the tool is distinguishable without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The 'No para' clause explicitly excludes content-type-parse, which is the highest-value routing signal. The positive 'Cuándo' clause, however, is a generic list (URL, token, version, IP range, HTML/Markdown, agent-readiness file) that reads like boilerplate shared across the server and only loosely maps to a MIME lookup, so the when-to-use side is weaker than the when-not side.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources