Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
molmcp

molmcp

by MolCrafts
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Outline

outline
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get a module-level directory for a source, using an optional path prefix to narrow the tree and showing sample symbols per module for quick orientation.

Instructions

L1 module directory for one source (optional path prefix).

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": {
      "source": "<source>"
    },
    "name": "outline"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoOptional path/module prefix to narrow the tree.
sourceYesName from packages.
top_symbols_limitNoMax sample symbols per module in the page.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already disclose read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's burden is lower. It adds a small amount of scope context ('one source', 'optional path prefix') but does not explain the meaning of 'L1' or how top_symbols_limit affects results. No contradiction with annotations.

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 very short and front-loaded; every word earns its place. It is not a perfect 5 because it is a sentence fragment and depends on the unexplained 'L1' abbreviation.

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 simple read-only tool with full schema descriptions, annotations, and an output schema, this is minimally adequate. It lacks usage guidance and contextual semantics around what 'L1' means and what the returned directory/page actually contains.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only echoes the 'optional path prefix' from the schema and adds no additional meaning for source or top_symbols_limit.

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 identifies the resource ('module directory'), the scope ('for one source'), and a key option ('optional path prefix'). However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource statement, and 'L1' is unexplained, leaving some ambiguity about exactly what is returned.

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 on when to choose outline over sibling tools like info, packages, or list_planes. 'for one source' hints at scope but does not state conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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