Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CheckPoint MCP Servers Explorer

CheckPoint MCP Servers Explorer

by mkol5222
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

fetch_readme

Fetch the README content from the CheckPointSW/mcp-servers repository to learn about available MCP servers and their capabilities.

Instructions

Fetch the README content from CheckPointSW/mcp-servers repository.

Returns: The content of the README.md file as text

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "fetch_readme"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.5

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of transparency. It discloses that the return is the README.md content as text, but it does not mention potential errors, required access, or whether the operation is read-only. For a simple fetch, 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 extremely concise—two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and then states the return value, earning every word.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, simple fetch) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could mention error cases or that it fetches from a fixed path, but those are minor omissions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly omits parameter details since none exist, and the schema already indicates no properties.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and clearly identifies the resource ('README content from CheckPointSW/mcp-servers repository'). It is easily distinguishable from siblings like list_chkp_mcp_servers and get_chkp_mcp_server_tools.

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?

The description implies use when you need the repo's README, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. The context is clear, but no direct guidance is provided.

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