Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
palace-tools

palace-tools

by benjhardy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

palace_gotchas

Retrieve AWS Palace lint rules and workflow lessons to catch common mistakes before generating configs or launching runs.

Instructions

The gotchas list (lint rules plus workflow lessons).

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": "palace_gotchas"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only what the list contains and says nothing about permissions, side effects, return format, or how the list is generated, leaving the agent with no behavioral context.

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 a single sentence with no filler and is front-loaded with the resource name. It is concise, though the parenthetical makes it a slightly fragmentary structure rather than a fully action-oriented statement.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns, but it only vaguely states the content types (lint rules plus workflow lessons). It does not describe the return shape, ordering, or any usage context, so an agent lacks enough information to understand the result.

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 and an empty schema, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate because the description does not need to compensate for undocumented inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the resource as a gotchas list and clarifies that it contains lint rules plus workflow lessons, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like palace_lint_rules. However, it lacks a verb and reads more as a label than an action, leaving the operation (e.g., retrieve/list) implied rather than stated.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as palace_lint_rules or palace_check. There is no mention of prerequisites, filters, or conditions under which the tool is appropriate.

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