Skip to main content
Glama

get_protocol_shell

Generate protocol shells for advanced reasoning workflows, including predefined templates or custom structures with specific intents.

Instructions

Returns a Protocol Shell. Can return a specific pre-defined template or a blank shell.

Args:
    name: The name of the protocol (e.g., 'reasoning.systematic') OR a custom name.
    intent: (Optional) The intent if creating a custom shell.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoMyProtocol
intentNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function decorated with @mcp.tool(), implementing the core logic: validates input with ProtocolShellInput, fetches predefined protocol template or generates a generic shell using format_protocol_shell.
    @mcp.tool()
    def get_protocol_shell(name: str = "MyProtocol", intent: str | None = None) -> str:
        """
        Returns a Protocol Shell. Can return a specific pre-defined template or a blank shell.
    
        Args:
            name: The name of the protocol (e.g., 'reasoning.systematic') OR a custom name.
            intent: (Optional) The intent if creating a custom shell.
        """
        try:
            model = ProtocolShellInput(name=name, intent=intent)
        except ValidationError as e:
            return f"Input Validation Error: {e}"
    
        template = get_protocol_template(model.name)
        if template:
            return template
    
        intent_str = model.intent or "Define your intent here"
        return format_protocol_shell(name=model.name, intent=intent_str)
  • Pydantic input schema used for validating the tool's parameters: name and optional intent.
    class ProtocolShellInput(BaseModel):
        name: str = Field("MyProtocol", min_length=1, description="Protocol name.")
        intent: str | None = Field(None, description="Optional intent.")
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns something, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as error conditions, performance characteristics, or what happens if invalid inputs are provided. The description is basic and lacks details on how the tool behaves beyond its core function, leaving significant gaps in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a brief explanation of capabilities, and then parameter details in a structured 'Args:' section. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low complexity, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. For a tool with 2 parameters and no annotations, it should provide more guidance on when and how to use it, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain returns, keeping it at an adequate baseline.

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 description adds meaningful semantics for both parameters: 'name' is described as 'The name of the protocol (e.g., 'reasoning.systematic') OR a custom name,' clarifying it can be a pre-defined template or custom, and 'intent' as '(Optional) The intent if creating a custom shell,' explaining its conditional use. With schema description coverage at 0% (no descriptions in the schema), the description fully compensates by providing clear, actionable context beyond the bare schema, justifying a high score.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns a Protocol Shell' with the ability to return 'a specific pre-defined template or a blank shell.' This specifies the verb ('Returns') and resource ('Protocol Shell'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_cell_protocol' or 'get_molecular_template' by focusing on shells rather than full protocols or templates. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'get_technique_guide'), keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that it can return 'a specific pre-defined template or a blank shell,' but does not specify scenarios for choosing between them or when to use this over sibling tools like 'get_cell_protocol' or 'get_prompt_program.' There is no explicit when/when-not or alternative tool references, resulting in minimal usage guidance.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/4rgon4ut/sutra'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server