Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
peerkith-mcp

peerkith-mcp

by BGarofalo1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

trail_get

Fetch the find-us trail JSON from /trail.json for the Peerkith MCP server. Use it to inspect trail data before hire verification, field posting, or preflight checks.

Instructions

GET find-us trail (/trail.json)

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": "trail_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.1

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only repeats that this is a GET request. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, response format, or any other operational characteristic.

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?

The description is a single short fragment with no wasted words and the endpoint is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a minimal GET operation, though it is arguably too sparse to be fully informative.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given there are no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description should carry more context about what the trail resource contains and why an agent would call it. It only supplies an endpoint path, which is insufficient for confident selection among many siblings.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the scoring baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is adequate.

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 states a specific HTTP verb (GET) and resource path (/trail.json), making the basic retrieval action clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling GET endpoints or explain what the 'find-us trail' resource represents.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wall_get, llms_get, or showcase_get. The description offers only the endpoint path, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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