Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Action Firewall

MCP Action Firewall

by starskrime
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Get Annotated Message Tool

get-annotated-message

Retrieve an annotated message with metadata based on message type (error, success, debug) and optionally include an example image to demonstrate annotation patterns for content metadata.

Instructions

Demonstrates how annotations can be used to provide metadata about content.

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": {
      "messageType": "<messageType>"
    },
    "name": "get-annotated-message"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageTypeYesType of message to demonstrate different annotation patterns
includeImageNoWhether to include an example image

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or output structure. It only says it 'demonstrates annotations' without elaboration.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but insufficient. It lacks necessary information such as output format or usage context.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no output schema and low complexity, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., an annotated message). It fails to do so, leaving the agent guessing.

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%, so the input schema already documents both parameters (messageType with enum, includeImage with default). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Demonstrates how annotations can be used to provide metadata about content' is vague and meta. It does not clearly state what the tool does (e.g., retrieves a message with annotations) or distinguish it from other tools.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The context signals list 13 other tools with no differentiation criteria.

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