Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
İzmir Açık Veri MCP

İzmir Açık Veri MCP

by batuoncel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Merhaba

merhaba

Tests whether the server is running by returning a greeting from İzmir addressed to a given name. Use it to verify connectivity before querying open data.

Instructions

Sunucunun çalıştığını test eder. Verilen isme İzmir'den selam döner.

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": {
      "isim": "<isim>"
    },
    "name": "merhaba"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
isimYesSelamlanacak kişinin adı

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that the operation is a non-destructive connectivity test whose response is a greeting incorporating the given name. It does not address permissions, rate limits, or failure behavior, but for a trivial probe that is a minor gap.

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 short sentences with zero filler, purpose front-loaded before the return behavior. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers what it does and what it returns. The only thing left implicit is the exact response shape and whether the call has any side effects, which is acceptable at this complexity.

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% and the single parameter 'isim' is already documented as the name of the person to greet. The description adds only that the name is echoed into a greeting, which is marginal value beyond the schema; 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 action and outcome: it tests that the server is running and returns a greeting from İzmir for the supplied name. The dual nature (health check plus greeting) is clear enough to distinguish it from the bus-location sibling, though the tool name alone would not have conveyed this.

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?

Saying it tests whether the server is running implies the usage context (connectivity/health verification) but never states when to prefer it over other tools or when it is unnecessary. No exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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