join
How to get a line: keys, code registration, desk WS, the dealing verbs, supervision.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
wire
by net.csclear
TDQS
D1.6/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and a vague description, the agent has no information about what the tool does, its side effects, or requirements. The description does not compensate for the lack of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence but is extremely vague and does not convey useful information efficiently. It fails to earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having no parameters and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate for understanding the tool's purpose or behavior. It provides no useful context.
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?
The input schema is empty (0 parameters), so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline is 3. The description adds no meaningful parameter context, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'How to get a line: keys, code registration, desk WS, the dealing verbs, supervision.' does not state a clear verb or resource. It is cryptic and fails to differentiate the tool from any sibling tool.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of the dealing wire (e.g., conv_status vs. deal_status, directory vs. instruments), with no obvious overlap. Descriptions clearly differentiate their purposes.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names are mostly snake_case and descriptive, but vary between noun phrases (e.g., 'about', 'montage') and verb phrases (e.g., 'post_axe', 'send_call'). The pattern is not fully uniform but remains clear and readable.
Tool Count5/5
With 18 tools, the server covers documentation, status queries, listing, and actions for a complex protocol. The count is well-scoped, avoiding both excess and insufficiency.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface provides full lifecycle coverage: reading schemas, posting axes, sending envelopes, polling rings, and inspecting deals and conversations. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose of agent-based dealing on the wire.