Check a plot document and get a link that opens it in Graph Paper. No account, no key.
The last two health checks of this connector failed. If this server requires authentication, missing or expired test credentials may be the cause. A test profile lets Glama authenticate for health checks and discover tools; it is separate from your personal connections.
If you are the author, claim ownership, then add or update a test profile under Admin → Test Profile.
Scored across 3 tools
The three tools have clearly distinct roles: get_plot_format retrieves the format reference, list_examples returns sample documents, and make_plot_link validates a document and produces a link. There is no overlap in purpose, and the descriptions make the intended usage order explicit.
All three names follow a predictable verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_plot_format, list_examples, make_plot_link). The verbs are sensible and consistent, with no mixing of conventions.
Three tools is on the lean side, but each earns its place in a narrow workflow: learn the format, see examples, then generate a link. It is well-scoped for the purpose though slightly minimal compared to a fuller reference/validation surface.
The domain is producing a valid plot document and a shareable link, and the surface covers the full lifecycle: format documentation, concrete examples, and validation-plus-link generation with cited external schemas. No obvious dead ends or missing operations for this task.
Return the reference of the Graph Paper plot document format, as Markdown: every field of a plot document, the series types, the limits, and complete examples. Give section to get one section only (a heading of the page, such as "Variables" or "2D Series Types"); an unknown section returns the list of headings. Read it before you write a document for make_plot_link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | No | A heading of the format page. Leave it out for the whole page. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail: output is Markdown, a known heading returns just that section, and an unknown section returns the heading list instead of erroring.
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?
Front-loaded with the return contract, followed by the section semantics and the routing hint. Slightly dense in the middle but every clause carries information; no filler.
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?
There is no output schema, but the description specifies what the return contains (fields, series types, limits, examples) and how sectioning affects it, which is everything needed to call and interpret the result.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented, so baseline would be 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by illustrating valid values ('Variables', '2D Series Types'), noting omission returns the whole page, and defining the unknown-section fallback.
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?
States a precise verb+resource (return the reference of the Graph Paper plot document format) and enumerates what the reference contains: fields, series types, limits, and examples. It is readily distinguishable from the write-oriented sibling make_plot_link.
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?
Gives explicit ordering guidance — 'Read it before you write a document for make_plot_link' — and names the downstream sibling that depends on it. It also explains the fallback behavior for an unrecognized section, so the agent knows how to recover rather than guessing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return the example plot documents of the Graph Paper format page, each with its title and its JSON. Each one is a valid document that make_plot_link accepts; start from the one closest to what you want.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| examples | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the docs come with titles and JSON and are guaranteed to be valid inputs for make_plot_link, which is behavioral information the annotations do not provide.
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?
Two sentences, both front-loaded with the essential information (what is returned, then how to use it). No filler or redundant restatement of the name.
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?
A zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema already present; the description need not explain return structure. It still summarizes the payload (title + JSON) and its downstream use, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the schema coverage baseline of 4 applies. No parameter guidance is needed or missing.
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?
States a specific verb (return) and resource (example plot documents of the Graph Paper format page), and distinguishes itself from siblings by tying the output to make_plot_link as the consumer. An agent can tell it apart from get_plot_format and make_plot_link without opening any schema.
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?
It gives clear usage context: these are valid inputs for make_plot_link, and the agent should 'start from the one closest to what you want.' It names a downstream alternative tool but does not explicitly state when NOT to use this list tool (e.g., when a format already exists elsewhere).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check a Graph Paper plot document and return the link that opens it. The link opens the plot as an editable draft in Graph Paper (https://graph-paper.io); the reader needs no account. Give the document as a JSON object in the format of get_plot_format. If the document has errors, the result lists each one with the path of the field and what to change, and no link; fix them and call the tool again. Warnings name the keys that were ignored. A JSON Schema of the document (draft-07) is at https://graph-paper.io/docs/schema/plot-document.schema.json, and a strict variant that also refuses every key that this tool only warns about is at https://graph-paper.io/docs/schema/plot-document.strict.schema.json.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document | Yes | The plot document: a JSON object with at least "title" and "series". See get_plot_format and list_examples. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | True when the document is valid and url is given. |
| url | No | The link that opens the document. |
| note | No | With ok true: the formulas were not computed, and what to ask the person when a row does not work. |
| rows | No | How many rows of each kind the document has. |
| title | No | |
| errors | No | |
| category | No | |
| warnings | Yes | |
| dimension | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the validation contract: on errors the result lists each one with the field path and no link is returned; ignored keys surface as warnings; the reader of the resulting link needs no account. Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so this added failure/warning semantics is genuine extra value.
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?
Front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then the format requirement, then error/warning behavior, then schema references. Four dense sentences with little waste, though the final schema-URL sentence is long and could be trimmed.
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?
With an output schema present, return structure needn't be explained, yet the description still covers the two outcomes that matter (error list with paths, or a link) plus warnings. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly or recover from a failure is missing.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema already names the single 'document' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning by pointing to get_plot_format for the expected shape and to the draft-07 schema URLs, including a strict variant that refuses keys this tool only warns about — information that changes what the agent should pass.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: validates a Graph Paper plot document and returns a link that opens it as an editable draft. This is clearly distinguishable from get_plot_format (which supplies the format) and list_examples (which supplies samples), so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.
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?
Gives a clear precondition (the document must be given as a JSON object in the format of get_plot_format) and a clear retry loop (if errors are returned, fix them and call the tool again). It does not state when NOT to use it or contrast the strict-schema path as a distinct workflow, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check that a reference resolves; see what supports, refutes or cites a paper. CC0 graph, read-only.
Free, no-account verification of KeyHalve-sealed documents. Read-only; never receives keys.
Create interactive 2D and 3D graphs with validated equations, shareable links, and PNG previews.
Share an HTML page or PDF as a short public link. No account or API key, expires on its own.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
