Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Docalyze

Docalyze

by LunarPerovskite
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

document_info

Retrieve metadata for a document, such as file type, size, and creation date, to quickly understand its properties.

Instructions

Return metadata about a specific document.

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": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "document_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must explicitly disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Return metadata' without mentioning permissions, rate limits, or what is included in 'metadata'. For a tool with no safety annotations, this is insufficient.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words. However, it omits necessary details, making it too brief to be fully effective. Conciseness is good, but completeness suffers.

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 tool is simple (1 param, no nested objects) and has an output schema, so the description may not need to detail return values. However, it fails to clarify what 'metadata' constitutes, leaving some ambiguity. Adequate but not comprehensive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does not add any context about the 'file_path' parameter (e.g., format, allowed protocols). The parameter name is self-explanatory, but without additional guidance, the score is low.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Return metadata') and the resource ('a specific document'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings: list_documents (listing), read_document (content), and visual_evaluate_document (visual evaluation).

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 context is implied: use when needing metadata for a known document. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, nor are alternatives compared despite sibling tools being named.

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