Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cody-mcp

cody-mcp

by daolmedo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ask_cody

Ask product questions about pricing, setup, integrations, MCP support, or data handling, and get answers with the source URLs used.

Instructions

Ask Cody a question about the product - pricing, setup, integrations, MCP support or data handling. Returns an answer plus the source URLs it was drawn from.

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": {
      "question": "<question>"
    },
    "name": "ask_cody"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
questionYesThe question to ask, e.g. 'How much does Cody cost?'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that the result is 'an answer plus the source URLs it was drawn from', which is genuine behavioral context. It says nothing about latency, freshness, or whether answers are authoritative, so for an unannotated tool this is only mid-range.

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?

Two tight clauses: what to ask, then what comes back. Zero waste and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read tool there is no output schema, and the description compensates by stating the return shape (answer + source URLs). The only gap is the absence of any routing guidance against the two sibling tools.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already supplies a concrete example ('How much does Cody cost?'). The description adds no syntax or format guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 for a fully documented single parameter applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb+resource ('Ask Cody a question about the product') and scopes the domain to pricing, setup, integrations, MCP support and data handling, which reads clearly against the sibling set. It stops short of explicitly naming how it differs from search_team_knowledge, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied by the topic list (product questions), but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus search_team_knowledge or list_integrations, and no exclusions. Adequate but the agent must infer the routing.

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