Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wrapguard-mcp

wrapguard-mcp

by Yuni9959
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

WrapGuard server information

server_info
Read-only

Retrieve the configured display name, safety policy, and supported languages to confirm server settings.

Instructions

Show the configured display name, safety policy, and supported languages.

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": "server_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the read-only safety profile, and the description's 'Show' wording is consistent with that. The description adds some value by enumerating the specific configuration fields exposed, but it does not disclose any other behavioral details such as authentication requirements or response characteristics.

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 a single sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and enumerates the returned information without any filler. It is optimally concise for a no-parameter read-only information tool.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple, zero-parameter, read-only info tool, the description sufficiently covers what the agent needs to know: the tool's purpose and the specific configuration values it returns. There is no output schema, but the description explicitly lists the main return fields, making the tool's behavior predictable.

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 has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not a burden on the description. The input schema is fully self-explanatory with no properties, and the description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than on nonexistent inputs.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and names the resource plus the exact fields returned (display name, safety policy, supported languages), distinguishing it from the operation-focused sibling tools. Even with no parameters, an agent immediately knows what server_info is for.

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?

The description implies that an agent should call this tool when it needs server-level configuration such as display name, safety policy, or supported languages. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling might be a better alternative for related needs.

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