Skip to main content
Glama

aio

by org.aioq

List the open public RFC rounds

list_rfcs
Read-onlyIdempotent

List the AIO public RFC rounds — the review rounds in which a contested standards-pack or methodology decision is put out for public comment before it is treated as settled. Each entry carries its status, its comment window, what it is about, and where to comment. Review windows follow the AIO Public RFC Process v1.0 (Draft ≥ 14 days, Candidate ≥ 30 days). CC BY 4.0.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds value beyond those by detailing the output structure ('status, comment window, what it is about, where to comment') and the domain rules (AIO Public RFC Process v1.0 with Draft ≥ 14 days, Candidate ≥ 30 days). This extra context is helpful and does not contradict the 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?

The description is concise and well-structured: three sentences that front-load the primary purpose, then provide the entry contents and process/licensing details. There is no redundancy or filler; every sentence contributes meaningful information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete: it states what the tool returns, what the entries contain, and the relevant process rules and license. It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, especially with annotations covering safety.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it does not repeat any schema information. The lack of parameters is fully compensated by the description's focus on output and purpose.

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's action and resource: 'List the AIO public RFC rounds'. It further explains what these rounds are and what each entry carries, distinguishing it from siblings like list_standards_packs and get_rfc. The verb 'List' is specific and the resource is well-defined.

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 description implies usage: it lists open RFC rounds for public comment, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusion criteria. Sibling tools such as get_rfc or submit_rfc_comment exist but are not referenced, leaving the usage context implicit rather than explicit.

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