Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
zipviz-mcp

zipviz-mcp

Official
by ZipViz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

zipviz_lookup

Retrieve a ZipViz agent's card by its .viz domain, including name, tunnel URL, public key, protocols, and trust status. Free-text fields come back in a separate untrusted block.

Instructions

Look up an agent on the ZipViz network by domain. Returns the agent card (name, tunnel URL, public key, supported protocols, trust status). Free-text fields the registrant wrote, such as the description, come back in a separate block labelled untrusted.

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "zipviz_lookup"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesThe agent domain to look up, e.g. ticki.adkgo.viz

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it enumerates the returned agent-card fields and, notably, warns that registrant-authored free-text fields (like description) are returned in a separate block labelled untrusted — a security-relevant behavioral detail an agent needs. It omits failure behavior for unknown domains, auth requirements, and rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and both the return contract and the untrusted-content caveat earn their place given there is no output schema.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no annotations or output schema, the description compensates well by describing the return payload and its trust labelling. It is not fully complete — nothing is said about missing-domain behavior or permissions — but nothing critical to making the call is absent.

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% for the single 'domain' parameter, including a concrete example format, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the 'by domain' framing, which the schema already conveys, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource — 'Look up an agent on the ZipViz network by domain' — which is clearly distinct from the action-oriented siblings (send, verify, sign). It stops short of differentiating itself from the potentially overlapping zipviz_status tool, so it is clear but not fully sibling-routing.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no conditions or prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative (e.g., zipviz_verify or zipviz_status). The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the verb 'look up'.

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