Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Gantry

Gantry

by fourn9
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

why

Read-only

Explains the reasoning and provenance behind a versioned robotics artifact, change, or decision by tracing dependencies to a given ID and depth.

Instructions

why

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": {
      "arguments": "<arguments>"
    },
    "name": "why"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
argumentsYes
idempotency_keyNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.4.0

TDQS

D1.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known and the description does not contradict it. However, the description adds zero behavioral context beyond that—no mention of what is explained, what basis/intent/depth do, or what the response contains.

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

Conciseness1/5

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

A one-word description is not conciseness but under-specification; it is front-loaded with nothing. No sentence earns its place because no informative sentence exists.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with nested object parameters, a required id, and no output schema, the description should carry nearly the entire burden of explaining purpose and return semantics. It is completely inadequate for that task.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the schema is nested (arguments.id, basis, intent, max_depth, idempotency_key), yet the description explains none of these. Critical parameters like basis, intent, and max_depth are entirely undocumented anywhere.

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

Purpose1/5

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

Tautological: description restates name/title.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to any alternative tool. With dozens of sibling tools covering context, history, and evidence, the agent has nothing to route on.

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