Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SciGlyph MCP Server

SciGlyph MCP Server

by ZengZichao
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Library Info / 素材库信息

sciglyph_library_info

Retrieve SciGlyph library details - version, license, asset count, author, and URL - to verify or cite the illustration collection.

Instructions

Get general information about the SciGlyph library, including version, license, total assets, author, and URL.

获取 SciGlyph 素材库的概要信息，包括版本、许可、素材总数、作者和网址。

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": "sciglyph_library_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
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 discloses the shape of the response (version, license, count, author, URL), which implies a safe, non-mutating read, but it says nothing about auth requirements, caching, or whether the call is expensive. Reasonable but thin for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no preamble; the bilingual Chinese rendering duplicates the same content but is presumably required for this library's i18n convention, so it is not wasted prose in context.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema and no parameters, the description is the only source of return-value information, and it lists the five key fields, which is sufficient for an agent to decide whether to call it. Only the absence of usage routing keeps it from being fully complete.

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 is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The enumerated return fields actually add value the empty schema cannot express.

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 ('Get general information about the SciGlyph library') and enumerates the returned fields: version, license, total assets, author, URL. This is clearly distinguishable from the data-retrieval siblings, though the description never names or contrasts them 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 implied by the resource name — call this for library-level metadata rather than asset-level data — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives among the six sibling tools. Adequate but leaves routing 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