JIC

All JIC sites and their own MCP servers

jic_sites

Read-onlyIdempotent

What each JIC site is for and where its own tools are: llms.txt for every site, and the MCP endpoints of the sites that have one (images, memory, classic-text libraries).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "jic_sites"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent, read-only, closed-world operation, so the description need not restate that. The description adds substantive scope: it returns llms.txt for every site and MCP endpoints only for sites that have them, with examples of the kinds of servers (images, memory, classic-text libraries).

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?

The definition is a single compact sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and the returned artifacts listed after the colon. Every phrase carries information; there is no filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return content: site purpose, llms.txt availability, and MCP endpoints for sites that have them. It does not specify the exact response shape or ordering, which keeps it short of fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify beyond the empty schema. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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?

The description identifies the resource (JIC sites) and the specific content returned: purpose of each site, llms.txt location, and MCP endpoints where available. It is clear enough to separate this catalog tool from sibling tools like jic_ask or jic_map_places, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with those alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery/reference tool for finding a site's llms.txt or MCP endpoint. It gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-routing guidance versus jic_overview or other sibling tools.

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

All JIC tools Inspect

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

Need Help?