open_viewer
Start an interactive web schematic viewer for circuit designs and return its URL for access.
Instructions
Start the interactive web schematic viewer and return its URL.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| circuit_id | No | ||
| port | No |
Start an interactive web schematic viewer for circuit designs and return its URL for access.
Start the interactive web schematic viewer and return its URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| circuit_id | No | ||
| port | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. Annotations indicate idempotency and non-read-only, but the description does not explain side effects like server startup or whether it opens a browser.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and output, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the two parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameters, the URL format, or any behavioral implications of starting an interactive viewer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no explanation of the two parameters (circuit_id and port). Their roles are entirely ambiguous to the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (start) and resource (interactive web schematic viewer), and specifies the return value (its URL). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools, though no sibling appears to have a similar function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/clanker-lover/spicebridge'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server