Skip to main content
Glama

aio

by org.aioq

Get the AIO Framework V/E/S vocabulary

get_framework_vocabulary
Read-onlyIdempotent

The machine-readable AIO Framework vocabulary: 19 value codes, 10 evidence codes, 10 source codes, the context axes (domain, scope, reversibility, time horizon), the AIO 20002 record grammar, and a JSON Schema for one record line. Use this to emit or validate AIO 20002 records. CC BY 4.0.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
layerNoReturn one layer only. V/L4 = value, E/L3 = evidence, S/L2 = source.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the specific content (e.g., 19 value codes, 10 evidence codes), the machine-readable nature, and the CC BY 4.0 license, which are not present in annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then a dense list of included items and a direct usage instruction. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy or 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 simple read-only vocabulary retrieval tool, the description covers what is returned, why to use it, and licensing. The optional layer filtering is documented in the schema, so the description is complete enough without repeating it.

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 fully documents the single optional 'layer' parameter with enum values and a clear description, providing 100% schema coverage. The description does not need to add parameter details; the use case for emitting/validating records implicitly contextualizes the parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns the machine-readable AIO Framework vocabulary, enumerating exactly what is included (value codes, evidence codes, source codes, context axes, record grammar, JSON Schema). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on items, benchmarks, or certifications.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explicitly says 'Use this to emit or validate AIO 20002 records,' giving a clear use case. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the phrasing plus the sibling set makes the context clear enough that this tool is for vocabulary/reference.

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

All aio toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: fetching items vs. distributions, listing vs. fetching specific entities, and distinct submission endpoints for benchmark, eval, and RFC comments. Even the two 'get items' tools (bench vs. eval) are clearly differentiated by their descriptions and use cases.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores. Verbs are grouped by action type (get_, list_, submit_, start_, register_, verify_, search_), and the patterns are predictable and uniform across the set.

Tool Count4/5

At 17 tools, the set is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but each tool serves a distinct purpose. The breadth of the domain (papers, RFCs, standards packs, benchmarks, evaluation, certification, vocabulary, search) justifies the count, and no tool feels redundant.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the major workflows: listing and fetching resources, starting and submitting evaluation attempts, registering and verifying certifications, and submitting benchmark/RFC responses. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct tool to cancel an evaluation attempt or list a specific benchmark run by id, but these are edge cases and the core lifecycle is well-covered.

Resources