Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
p21

p21

by mocchan0221
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Load a label file

p21_load_label
Read-only

Load a .p21.json label file and return the saved label plus validation warnings so you can review label data before use.

Instructions

Load a .p21.json label file. Returns the label as written in the file plus validation warnings.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "p21_load_label"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the return behavior: the label is returned as-written (no normalization) plus validation warnings, which tells the agent it may get a usable object even for imperfect files. It stops short of saying what happens on a missing or malformed file.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the load action and the file-type qualifier front-loaded before the return-value note. Nothing redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it says what it reads and what comes back. The remaining omission is failure behavior (invalid file, missing path), which an agent would want before calling.

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 0%, so the single `path` parameter is undocumented in structured fields; the description partially compensates by implying it points at a .p21.json label file, but never states whether the path is relative or absolute or what error arises if the extension is wrong. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Load) and resource (a .p21.json label file), including the file format constraint. It is distinguishable from p21_save_label and p21_label_format by naming the exact input type it consumes.

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 file-format mention implies when this applies (reading an existing .p21.json label off disk), but there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over siblings like p21_label_format, p21_scan, or p21_save_label, nor any stated prerequisites such as the path needing to exist.

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