Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
creative-tagger-mcp

creative-tagger-mcp

by stephenlavender
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

preview_naming_template

Test and preview a naming template by applying sample taxonomy values to verify the naming convention before saving.

Instructions

Preview a naming template with sample taxonomy values before saving it.

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": {
      "template": "<template>"
    },
    "name": "preview_naming_template"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNodefault
templateYes
separatorNo_

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.2

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The verb 'preview' suggests a read-only operation, which is non-destructive. However, it doesn't confirm idempotency, rate limits, or whether any side effects exist. The description is adequate 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure and depth. It frontloads the purpose but is too vague to be fully effective. Every word counts but it could be more informative without losing brevity.

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 that there is no output schema and three parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the preview returns, how parameters affect the output, or reference sibling tools like 'save_naming_template'. The description is too brief for an agent to use the tool confidently.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'sample taxonomy values' without explaining the three parameters (name, template, separator). No parameter meanings or usage hints are provided, making the description minimally helpful for parameter understanding.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Preview' and the resource 'naming template with sample taxonomy values'. It implies a trial run before saving, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'save_naming_template' or 'generate_naming'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to preview vs. save). The description only states 'before saving it', but doesn't explain prerequisites or when not to use it.

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