Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wtf-wave

wtf-wave

by xtrollyj00
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

help

Read-only

Look up waveform concept details, patterns, recipes, commands, and decoding references when documentation or errors leave gaps; omit a topic to list available references.

Instructions

The reference for one concept: its form, recipes and details. Topics: names, patterns, times, radix, expressions, decode, records, workspace, commands; without a topic, lists them. Call it when an argument's doc or an error isn't enough.

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": "help"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicNoA topic; none lists them.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description explains what the reference contains (form, recipes, details) and that omitting a topic lists the available topics. It does not describe the response format in detail, but it adds meaningful behavioral context for a help tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is short, front-loaded with purpose, then lists topics and usage guidance. Every sentence contributes, though the topic enumeration could be considered slightly list-heavy.

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 simple read-only help endpoint with full parameter description coverage and no output schema, the description provides enough to select and invoke it correctly. It could say more about the response format, but the core behavior and available topics are covered.

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?

The schema already documents the optional topic parameter at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating valid topic names and restating that omitting the topic lists them, which goes beyond the schema's short parameter description.

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 states that this is a reference for one concept, covering its form, recipes, and details, and it lists the available topics. This is a clear purpose, but it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from sibling discovery tools such as info or find.

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?

It gives a clear usage cue: call it when an argument's documentation or an error message is insufficient. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context for use is explicit.

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