Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

AILANG Docs

by io.github.sunholo-data
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

AILANG install guide

install_guide
Read-onlyIdempotent

Harness-aware install instructions for AILANG. harness: "claude-code" | "gemini-cli" | "codex-cli" | "manual" | "build-from-source" | "" platform: only meaningful for "manual" (e.g. "darwin-arm64", "linux-amd64"); ignored otherwise Empty harness returns ALL harnesses + the remote_mcp config block.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "harness": "<harness>",
      "platform": "<platform>"
    },
    "name": "install_guide"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
harnessYes
platformYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's added value is telling the agent what comes back: a per-harness instruction set, or with an empty harness, all harnesses plus the remote_mcp config block. That is real behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it never notes how a bad harness value is handled.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three dense lines that front-load the purpose and then document each parameter, with zero filler. The compact per-field formatting is terse but unambiguous for an agent.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple read-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers both parameters, the special empty-harness behavior, and the extra config block returned in that case. The only material omission is the required-value question for platform when harness is not 'manual'.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% with two required string params and no enums, so the description must carry the load and mostly does: it enumerates the accepted harness values and explains platform formats with examples ('darwin-arm64', 'linux-amd64') plus when platform matters. The gap is that platform is marked required yet described as ignored for non-manual harnesses, without saying what value to supply in that case.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific resource (install instructions for AILANG) with a distinguishing qualifier (harness-aware), which separates it from generic siblings like onboarding_guide or docs_search. It does not explicitly contrast with onboarding_guide, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage by explaining what each harness value selects and that an empty harness returns everything plus the remote_mcp config block, which effectively tells the agent which value to pick for its situation. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative such as onboarding_guide for users who want general setup help.

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

All AILANG Docs toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources