Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Raziel

by io.github.tide-foundation
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

tide_scenario_manifest

Read-only

Read a scenario manifest from reference-apps//manifest.yaml

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_manifest"
  }
}

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, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds the concrete source path, but says nothing about behavior when the scenario name is invalid, whether a missing manifest errors or returns empty, or what form the read result takes.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the resource path is given immediately. It is arguably over-terse for a tool with no output schema, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description should hint at what a manifest contains or its format (YAML), and it only implies format via the file path. For a simple one-param read this is workable but leaves a gap in what the agent should expect back.

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 schema's name description already enumerates the eight available scenarios, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does add that 'name' maps to a directory under reference-apps/, which is modest added meaning over the schema.

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 manifest at reference-apps/<scenario>/manifest.yaml), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from plausible siblings like tide_list_scenarios or tide_scenario, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus tide_list_scenarios, tide_scenario, or tide_scenario_bootstrap, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer selection from the tool 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