Skip to main content
Glama

GAIP Integration & Protocol Agent

by io.github.tjcgraham-rgb
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Look up an MCP server's or agent's history

gaip_observatory_lookup
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when asked about an MCP server's or agent's history ("has this server changed?", "was it up last week?"). Pass its url or name. Returns dated facts the Agent Observatory observed: status history, manifest hash, conformance codes, change log. Not an assessment. Free, read-only, no account; inputs must be public and non-personal.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoPublic URL of the MCP server or agent to look up.
nameNoOptional: server or agent name to search for.
target_idNoOptional: an Observatory target id (obs_...).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / examples
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "url": "https://mcp.deepwiki.com/mcp"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "url": "https://huggingface.co/mcp"
+  }
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / examples
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "url": "https://weather.example.com/mcp"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "url": "https://mcp.deepwiki.com/mcp"
+  }
+]
  3. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Added value: +"Optional: server or agent name to search for."
    • addedInput schema / properties / target_id / description
      Added value: +"Optional: an Observatory target id (obs_...)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / url / description
      Added value: +"Public URL of the MCP server or agent to look up."
  4. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real value beyond them: 'Free, read-only, no account; inputs must be public and non-personal.' It also discloses the return payload categories (status history, manifest hash, conformance codes, change log) and the key negative ('Not an assessment').

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?

Front-loads the trigger condition, then the inputs, then the return payload, then constraints, in four tight sentences with no filler. Every clause carries actionable information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden itself and does so by enumerating what comes back (status history, manifest hash, conformance codes, change log). Combined with the auth/privacy constraints and the 'Not an assessment' scope note, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents url, name, and target_id, establishing a baseline of 3. The description only echoes 'Pass its url or name' and adds no format, precedence, or conflict-resolution detail (e.g., which wins if both url and name are supplied).

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?

Specific verb ('look up') plus resource ('an MCP server's or agent's history'), with example questions that nail the intent. It partially differentiates from siblings via 'Returns dated facts ... Not an assessment,' which carves space against check_agent_conformance and gaip_supplier_reliability, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicit when-to-use trigger ('Use this when asked about a server's or agent's history') reinforced with two concrete user phrasings ('has this server changed?', 'was it up last week?'). No explicit when-not or named alternatives, but the 'Not an assessment' line implies the boundary.

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

All GAIP Integration & Protocol Agent toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Context Every Agent Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and keep it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources