Supported formats, samples, and service capabilities. No auth required. Delegates to package implementation. Single source of truth lives in pkg/sunholo/ailang_parse/services/mcp/tools — since ailang_parse 0.39.x the response carries a runtime capability block (state, not intent), which is why this is no longer pure: it reads env and probes the runtime (Process).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| _ | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool 'reads env and probes the runtime (Process)' and that the response carries a 'runtime capability block (state, not intent),' which is meaningful transparency beyond a simple 'returns formats' statement. It could still mention return structure or potential failure modes, but the behavioral disclosure is well above average.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The core capability is front-loaded, but the description includes internal implementation details like the package path and a version-history explanation ('since ailang_parse 0.39.x...') that are not essential for correct invocation. It is not bloated, but it carries more developer-context prose than necessary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, so the description must fill a large gap. It provides useful runtime-behavior context, but it never explains the required '_' input or the shape of the returned formats/samples/capabilities block. An agent cannot confidently call this tool correctly from the given information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the single required parameter '_' is not explained anywhere in the description. An agent has no idea what value to pass or what role the parameter plays. The behavior notes about env/runtime probing do not clarify this parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Supported formats, samples, and service capabilities,' which clearly indicates the tool exposes informational content rather than performing a transformation like mcpConvert or mcpParse. It is not a tautology and gives a reasonable sense of the resource, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'return' and does not directly distinguish itself from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus mcpParse, mcpConvert, mcpEstimate, or mcpAccount. 'No auth required' is an access note, not a usage condition. No alternatives, exclusions, or invocation context are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes: parse, convert, estimate, formats, auth, auth-poll, account, upload, and feedback. The main ambiguity is that editDocument with an empty delta array behaves like a parse, overlapping with mcpParse.
Seven tools share a useful mcp prefix with PascalCase, but editDocument and getUploadUrl are camelCase and submit_feedback is snake_case. The casing and verb-style inconsistencies make the tool set feel less coherent than its overall design suggests.
Ten tools is a well-scoped size for this domain: authentication, account, upload, formatting, estimation, parsing, editing, conversion, and feedback are each represented. No tool feels redundant or like filler.
The surface covers the key parse workflow: get an API key, upload, estimate, parse, edit, convert, and check supported formats. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit API-key revoke action and some output/workflow steps being delegated to the SDK/CLI.
