Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP CU Chat Server

MCP CU Chat Server

by changjian-wang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

render_cu_schema

Renders Azure Content Understanding field schema as interactive table cards in VS Code Chat, enabling editing and persistence of field descriptions.

Instructions

Render CU field schema as a right-side style table in VS Code Chat

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": "render_cu_schema"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
schemaPathNo
fieldSchemaNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, output format, or limitations. It only states the high-level action without further detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise with a single sentence. However, it is not overly long, but could be more informative without losing brevity.

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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters including a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks explanation of what 'CU field schema' means, how to use the parameters, and what the output or behavior is.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description does not explain any of the two parameters (schemaPath, fieldSchema) or their roles. With 0% schema description coverage, no additional meaning is added beyond the parameter names and types.

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 clearly states the action ('Render'), the resource ('CU field schema'), and the context ('as a right-side style table in VS Code Chat'). It distinguishes the tool from its sibling 'update_field_description' which performs a different operation.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any conditions for use. The sibling tool is mentioned but not differentiated in terms of usage.

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