Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
structuresynth-mcp

structuresynth-mcp

by Astrid3333
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_example

Retrieve the complete EisenScript source for a bundled example by name to inspect, adapt, or reuse procedural grammar code.

Instructions

Return the full EisenScript source of a bundled example by name.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "get_example"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only fetch of bundled content, but says nothing about behavior when the name doesn't match a bundled example (error vs. empty), or whether the returned source is the raw bundled file.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and the scope of the return value come first.

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?

The output schema covers the return shape and the tool is a simple single-parameter read, so much of the burden is lifted. Still missing is how to discover valid names and the failure mode for an unknown name — key gaps for the only input.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'name' is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It only implies the name is that of a bundled example, without stating where valid names come from or whether matching is case-sensitive.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Return the full EisenScript source of a bundled example by name.' This clearly separates it from list_examples (enumeration) and eisenscript_reference (documentation), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'by name' hints that a name must be known beforehand, but the description never says to call list_examples first, nor does it name any alternative tool. An agent must infer the workflow.

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