GLØDI

Request a demo code

request_demo

Ask the GLØDI team for a demo access code for a person interested in GLØDI: their name and email or mobile number. A code goes there, then confirm_with_code. The team answers by hand.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "contact": "<contact>"
    },
    "name": "request_demo"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	The person's full name, as they say it.
`locale`	No	Answer language: nb (Norwegian) or en.	nb
`contact`	Yes	An email address or a mobile number. The code goes there.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	Yes	code_sent: ask the person for the code, then call confirm_with_code.
`channel`	Yes	sms or email.
`expires_at`	Yes	When the code stops working.
`code_sent_to`	Yes	The masked phone or email the code went to.
`confirmation_id`	Yes	Pass it to confirm_with_code with the code.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (openWorldHint true, idempotentHint false), the description discloses two useful behavioral facts: the code is delivered to the supplied contact ('A code goes there') and processing is manual ('The team answers by hand'), implying latency and human review. It does not warn that repeated calls create duplicate requests despite idempotentHint being false, nor how long the hand-handling takes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the required inputs, then the delivery destination and the follow-up tool. Phrasing is slightly clipped ('A code goes there'), but nothing is redundant.

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?

Return values need not be explained because an output schema exists, and the description covers who processes the request, where the code goes, and the next step. Remaining gap is failure/duplicate behavior for a non-idempotent write, which is minor against the annotation coverage.

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 name, contact, and locale are already fully documented, including the locale enum and defaults. The description restates name and email-or-mobile without adding format rules or edge cases, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource: asking the GLØDI team for a demo access code on behalf of an interested person, including the identifying fields required. It also names the immediate follow-up tool, confirm_with_code, which helps separate it from generic inquiry tools. It stops short of distinguishing itself from send_inquiry, the closest sibling by intent.

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?

The phrase 'then confirm_with_code' gives a clear sequential cue about the flow this tool initiates, which is real usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement relative to siblings like send_inquiry or book_appointment, so the agent must infer the trigger condition.

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

All GLØDI 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?