Look up a value type (i32, funcref, v128, …) or type form (functype, limits, memtype, …): classification, sibling members, defining clause prose, formal refs, and URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Type or type-form name. Case-insensitive, exact. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, so the agent knows it's a safe read. Description adds details on return content (classification, sibling members, prose, refs, URL), which provides useful context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with colon list is highly concise and front-loaded with purpose. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, description explicitly lists what is returned, making it complete for a simple read-only tool with one parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with clear definition of 'name' parameter. Description adds example values but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'look up' and clearly identifies resource types (value types and type forms) with examples. It distinguishes from sibling tools like instruction_get by focusing on type information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies usage for looking up types but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No comparison to alternatives is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of WebAssembly: instructions (get/list/search), proposals (list), spec sections (get/list/search), version info, and types. No overlapping purposes.
All tools use consistent snake_case with verb_noun pattern: instruction_get, instruction_list, instruction_search, proposal_list, section_get, section_list, spec_search, spec_version, type_get.
9 tools is well-scoped for a WebAssembly reference server, covering instructions, specs, proposals, types, and metadata without being overwhelming.
Covers core retrieval and search for instructions, specs, proposals, and types. Minor gaps like no dedicated proposal get or type list, but the set is sufficient for typical exploration tasks.