Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
technocore-mcp

technocore-mcp

by 0xgoodcrypto
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

technocore_did_note

Retrieve the DID note value and its namespace/key for a technocore identity. Publishing happens externally; this tool only provides the note details.

Instructions

The DID note value and the namespace/key it belongs at. Publishing it is a human action performed outside this server; no write URL is returned.

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": "technocore_did_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden. It transparently mentions that publishing is done outside the server and no write URL is returned, but it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence states the core content, and the second situational context, both front-loaded with essential information and no extraneous detail.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a tool with no inputs, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basic output and clarifies non-writing behavior. However, it does not explain why an agent would use this tool, its relationship to other read tools, or any prerequisites, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 input schema is empty with zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation needed. According to the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate since the description adds no parameter information but none is required.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states the tool provides 'the DID note value and the namespace/key it belongs at,' which implies a retrieval function but lacks an explicit verb like 'reads' or 'returns.' It offers some differentiation by noting publishing is a human action, but the purpose is not fully explicit.

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?

The description only clarifies that publishing is a human action and no write URL is returned, implying the tool is not for writes. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like technocore_read_note, providing minimal usage guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools