Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Raziel

by io.github.tide-foundation
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

tide_scenario_bootstrap

Read-only

Read a scenario bootstrap sequence from reference-apps//bootstrap-sequence.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_bootstrap"
  }
}

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. Changed1 schema field 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"
  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

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that. It adds the useful detail that the result is the contents of a specific markdown file, but says nothing about behavior when the scenario name is invalid or the file is absent, nor about output format.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is arguably too terse for a tool with this many near-siblings, but no sentence is wasted.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient; the file path tells the agent roughly what text comes back. The missing piece is any mention of failure behavior for unknown scenarios, which is minor here.

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 parameter already enumerates the eight valid scenario names, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds only the path template the name is substituted into, which is marginal added value — baseline 3 applies.

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 verb (Read) and resource (a scenario bootstrap sequence), and even names the file it resolves to (reference-apps/<scenario>/bootstrap-sequence.md). It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like tide_scenario, tide_scenario_manifest, or tide_scenario_roles, so an agent must guess which scenario artifact it wants.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. Given a cluster of scenario-related siblings (tide_scenario, tide_scenario_manifest, tide_scenario_roles, tide_choose_scenario, tide_list_scenarios), the description gives the agent nothing to route on beyond the word 'bootstrap'.

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