Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Agentic Web Wiki — standards reference, probe, validate, template

by wiki.agenticweb
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

ask

Read-onlyIdempotent

Recommend and rank standards to implement for an engineering goal (pass question/q and/or use_case + audience filters), or compare named protocols head-to-head when the query names 2+ standards. Returns { use_case, audience, standards (ranked by tier and adoption), starter_bundle, comparisons }. Use ask for architecture and stack decisions; use search for keyword lookup or get for one standard's record.

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": "ask"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoalias for question: natural-language implementation question
audienceNotarget audience filter (site-owner, agent-builder, platform, standards-body)
questionNonatural-language implementation question (e.g. How do I accept payments from agents?)
use_caseNooptional explicit use-case id filter

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / audience / description
      Previous value: -"target audience filter (publisher, api-provider, agent-builder, commerce)"New value: +"target audience filter (site-owner, agent-builder, platform, standards-body)"
  2. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / audience / description
      Added value: +"target audience filter (publisher, api-provider, agent-builder, commerce)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / q / description
      Added value: +"alias for question: natural-language implementation question"
    • addedInput schema / properties / question / description
      Added value: +"natural-language implementation question (e.g. How do I accept payments from agents?)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / use_case / description
      Added value: +"optional explicit use-case id filter"
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / q
      Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 200,
+  "minLength": 3,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "question"
-]
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the response shape and the ranking rule ('ranked by tier and adoption'). It does not say what happens when no filters are supplied, how many standards are returned, or what an empty result looks like.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler: capability, return shape, then disambiguation. The parenthetical in sentence one is slightly crammed, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, full annotations, and the return fields spelled out in lieu of an output schema, an agent has what it needs. The one gap is behavior with zero arguments, since all four parameters are optional and required count is 0.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes further by noting `q`/`question` are alternates ('pass question/q and/or use_case + audience filters') and by tying the number of named standards in the query to mode selection — semantics not encoded in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Recommend and rank standards') plus a second, clearly bounded mode ('compare named protocols head-to-head when the query names 2+ standards'). The final sentence separates it from `search` and `get` by function, so an agent can pick it without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit routing: 'Use ask for architecture and stack decisions; use search for keyword lookup or get for one standard's record.' It also gives the trigger condition for comparison mode (2+ named standards), leaving nothing to inference.

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

All Agentic Web Wiki — standards reference, probe, validate, template toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources