Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Riza MCP Server

Riza MCP Server

by ampcome-mcps
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

execute_tool

Execute a saved tool by passing its ID and input object. Run self-written tools inside Riza's secure, isolated code interpreter.

Instructions

Executes a tool. This tool will be used to execute a self-written tool.

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": {
      "tool_id": "<tool_id>",
      "input": "<input>"
    },
    "name": "execute_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputYesThe input to the tool. This must match the input schema of the tool.
tool_idYesThe ID of the tool you are executing.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior, but it only restates the action. It does not warn that executing a self-written tool can run arbitrary code, mention side effects, or explain what happens on success or failure.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence repeats the idea but adds the 'self-written' qualifier, so it earns a mild pass; it is not bloated.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a dynamic execution tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain how to obtain a tool_id, what the return value is, or what side effects may occur when executing an arbitrary self-written tool.

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 schema already documents tool_id and input. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that baseline, which is acceptable but not additive.

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 clear action and resource: 'Executes a tool' and further narrows it to 'a self-written tool.' This separates it from sibling create/fetch/edit/list tools and from execute_code, though it stops short of explicitly naming the distinction.

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 line 'This tool will be used to execute a self-written tool' implies the main use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives such as execute_code. The agent must infer when this tool is the right choice.

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