Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aparser-mcp

aparser-mcp

by izzipizzy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript

Parser info

parser_info

Get a parser's result fields schema (arrays and flat) to create accurate resultsFormat templates for add_task.

Instructions

Describe a parser's result fields. Returns the results schema: arrays (nested lists like serp/ads) and flat (scalar fields like $query, $totalcount) that you can reference in a resultsFormat template. Call this before writing a resultsFormat for add_task.

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": {
      "parser": "<parser>"
    },
    "name": "parser_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
parserYesParser name, e.g. "SE::Google".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It explains the return structure but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects. For a simple info tool, this is acceptable but not thorough.

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 three sentences: purpose, return details, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

In the absence of an output schema, the description explains the return value well by categorizing fields as arrays and flat with examples. It ties the tool to add_task, providing context. Minor omission: it doesn't specify the format of the returned schema.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter described as 'Parser name, e.g. "SE::Google".' The description does not add additional meaning to the parameter, so it stays at baseline.

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 tool's purpose: 'Describe a parser's result fields.' It also specifies what it returns (arrays and flat fields) and how it relates to add_task, distinguishing it from sibling tools like info or list_parsers.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly says 'Call this before writing a resultsFormat for add_task,' providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, leaving room for improvement.

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