Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Raziel

by io.github.tide-foundation
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

tide_hosting

Read-only

Where TideCloak runs: local Docker vs partner-hosted (Skycloak managed TideCloak-as-a-service). Returns the local-vs-hosted decision with the honest trade-offs, the trust model, the verified Skycloak API reference (correct cluster field names and the required version), and the full provisioning playbook. CALL THIS BEFORE STARTING ANY TIDECLOAK DEPLOYMENT — the choice must be made up front (I-17) because a realm cannot be moved between local and hosted afterwards. Triggers: 'deploy to production', 'deploy TideCloak', 'go live', 'host this somewhere', 'managed option', 'stable URL', 'can someone host TideCloak for us', or any request to stand up an instance where local-vs-hosted has not been settled.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "tide_hosting"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
partNoWhich part to return when the document is delivered in several parts. Omit for part 1; the response says how many there are.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / part / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / $schema
      Added value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / part
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Which part to return when the document is delivered in several parts. Omit for part 1; the response says how many there are.",
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/non-destructive, and the description adds real value on top: it discloses the content shape (decision + trade-offs + trust model + API reference + playbook) and the one-way consequence of the local-vs-hosted choice. It does not mention that the response may be split into multiple parts, which the schema parameter implies.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with purpose, then the imperative call-order constraint, then triggers. Dense and mostly earning its space; the trigger list is long but directly serves tool selection. Slight redundancy between 'deploy to production' and 'go live'.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry return semantics, and it does by naming the five content blocks returned. The one omission is that paginated/multi-part delivery is only discoverable from the schema, not the prose.

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?

Only one optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains `part` including the 'omit for part 1' behavior. The description adds no parameter guidance, which is the expected baseline here rather than a deficiency.

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?

States a specific resource (where TideCloak runs: local Docker vs Skycloak-managed) and enumerates exactly what the response contains: the decision, trade-offs, trust model, verified Skycloak API reference, and provisioning playbook. This clearly separates it from sibling playbook/choice tools like tide_playbook and tide_choose_playbook.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit ordering instruction ('CALL THIS BEFORE STARTING ANY TIDECLOAK DEPLOYMENT'), a concrete rationale (realm cannot be moved between local and hosted afterwards, I-17), and a trigger list covering the phrasings an agent is likely to encounter. Nothing is left to inference about when this tool applies.

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

All Raziel 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