Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
palace-tools

palace-tools

by benjhardy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

palace_spec

Explains the compact config spec for palace_build_config and shows an example, helping agents format AWS Palace simulation settings correctly.

Instructions

Describe the compact config spec accepted by palace_build_config, with an example.

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_spec"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core output (a description of the spec plus an example), which is useful, but it does not state return format, whether the operation is read-only, or any other operational trait.

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?

The definition is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and the example output. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or buried 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?

For a simple reference tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states what is returned and references the consuming sibling. It could add a note about the return format or read-only nature, but those gaps are minor.

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, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description does not need to compensate for any undocumented inputs.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description names a specific verb ('Describe') and resource ('compact config spec accepted by palace_build_config'), and it explicitly ties the spec to the sibling tool that consumes it. An agent can distinguish this documentation tool from build_config and lint_config without opening another schema.

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 reference to palace_build_config implies this tool is used to learn the config format before building or linting, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative selection guidance. The intended usage is inferable but not stated.

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