Skip to main content
Glama

Raziel

by io.github.tide-foundation

tide_hosting

Read-only

Where TideCloak runs: local Docker vs partner-hosted (Skycloak managed TideCloak-as-a-service). Returns the local-vs-hosted decision with the honest trade-offs, the trust model, the verified Skycloak API reference (correct cluster field names and the required version), and the full provisioning playbook. CALL THIS BEFORE STARTING ANY TIDECLOAK DEPLOYMENT — the choice must be made up front (I-17) because a realm cannot be moved between local and hosted afterwards. Triggers: 'deploy to production', 'deploy TideCloak', 'go live', 'host this somewhere', 'managed option', 'stable URL', 'can someone host TideCloak for us', or any request to stand up an instance where local-vs-hosted has not been settled.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context about the decision's irreversibility and the verified API reference. It also discloses that the tool returns a playbook and trade-offs, which is useful beyond the schema.

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 a single dense paragraph, but it front-loads the core purpose and uses caps for the critical instruction. The trigger list adds value, though the length could be slightly reduced with better formatting.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no input schema and no output schema, the description carries the full burden. It covers what the tool does, when to call, why it matters, and trigger examples, making it complete for a decision-documentation tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description focuses on the content returned rather than params.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: it returns the local-vs-hosted deployment decision for TideCloak, with specifics on what it includes (trade-offs, trust model, API reference, provisioning playbook). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on hosting rather than scenario/playbook selection.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly says 'CALL THIS BEFORE STARTING ANY TIDECLOAK DEPLOYMENT' and provides a list of trigger phrases. It also explains the constraint that a realm cannot be moved between local and hosted, making the when-to-use guidance very clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Raziel toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: reading specific document types (adapter, canon, gaps, playbook, etc.), performing assessments (blast_radius, security_analysis), branding, deployment decision, and listing content. However, some reading tools like tide_canon and tide_gaps could be confused, and the multiple scenario-related tools (scenario, bootstrap, manifest, roles) require careful reading of descriptions to differentiate.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools use the 'tide_' prefix with snake_case, which provides a strong pattern. However, the naming mixes nouns (tide_canon, tide_gaps) with verb phrases (tide_choose_playbook, tide_list), and some tools like tide_dpop_asset are less intuitive. The pattern is mostly consistent but not strictly verb_noun.

Tool Count3/5

With 19 tools, the set is on the higher end for a single server. While many are necessary for the broad scope of reading various reference materials and performing analyses, the count feels slightly excessive. A few tools could be consolidated or removed to improve focus.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers reading all major reference documents, performing security assessments, branding, deployment decisions, and scenario matching. For the stated purpose of a 'Tide agent pack', it appears comprehensive. Minor gaps might include a tool for overall system health or status, but the core workflows are well-covered.

Resources