Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
workflow-atlas

workflow-atlas

by claudiu-deving
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

get_algorithm

Fetch the full JSON spec of an algorithm storyboard, detailing metadata, kind, code, params, steps, or builtin properties.

Instructions

Read the full JSON spec of an algorithm storyboard (meta, kind, code, params, steps or builtin).

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": {
      "algorithm": "<algorithm>"
    },
    "name": "get_algorithm"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
algorithmYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it 'Reads' the spec, implying no side effects. However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., algorithm not found) or any permissions needed. It mentions 'full JSON spec,' which hints at the return format but lacks details.

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 description is a single 16-word sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and result. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essence. The term 'full JSON spec' implies the return is a complete representation. It could mention whether the spec includes nested structures, but given the sibling tools and simplicity, it is adequate.

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?

The input schema has one required string parameter 'algorithm' with no description (0% coverage). The description mentions 'algorithm storyboard,' clarifying that the parameter identifies an algorithm. However, no format or example is given. The description adds some meaning but could be more explicit.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'full JSON spec of an algorithm storyboard' with specific content types (meta, kind, code, params, steps or builtin). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like save_algorithm or delete_algorithm by focusing on reading the spec.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives, but the name 'get_algorithm' and sibling tools like 'list_algorithms' or 'save_algorithm' imply its purpose. The description could benefit from noting that it retrieves a specific algorithm's spec, not listing or modifying.

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