Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Raziel

by io.github.tide-foundation
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

tide_scenario

Read-only

Read a scenario summary from reference-apps//scenario.md

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "tide_scenario"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesScenario name. Available: attestation, attested-provenance-registry, encrypted-communication, git-pr-signing-service, iga-admin-governance, organisation-password-manager, policy-governed-signing, relationship-attestation
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. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Previous value: -"Scenario name. Available: attested-provenance-registry, encrypted-communication, git-pr-signing-service, iga-admin-governance, organisation-password-manager, policy-governed-signing"New value: +"Scenario name. Available: attestation, attested-provenance-registry, encrypted-communication, git-pr-signing-service, iga-admin-governance, organisation-password-manager, policy-governed-signing, relationship-attestation"
    • 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. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Previous value: -"Scenario name. Available: encrypted-communication, git-pr-signing-service, iga-admin-governance, organisation-password-manager, policy-governed-signing"New value: +"Scenario name. Available: attested-provenance-registry, encrypted-communication, git-pr-signing-service, iga-admin-governance, organisation-password-manager, policy-governed-signing"
  4. First observed

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description only adds that the content comes from a markdown file under reference-apps/; it says nothing about document size, why multi-part delivery exists, or how the response signals remaining parts (that detail lives only in the schema).

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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is lean, though arguably so lean that it verges on under-specification rather than pure efficiency.

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

Completeness3/5

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

This is a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema and a fully documented schema, so not much is required. Still missing is any distinction from the several similarly named scenario siblings, which is the main thing an agent needs.

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 both 'name' and 'part' are fully documented in the schema, including the enumerated scenario names. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('scenario summary') plus the source path. But it does nothing to distinguish this from close siblings like tide_scenario_manifest, tide_scenario_roles, or tide_choose_scenario, so an agent cannot route confidently without inspection.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite, and no mention of alternative tools such as tide_choose_scenario or tide_list_scenarios. The agent must infer the correct call site from the name alone.

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