Skip to main content
Glama

Agentic Engineering Periodic System

find_elements

Find elements of the table by words in their name, problem or test, by role (dev, lead, plat, qa, ...), by group (security, verification, ...) or by row (task, change, system, organisation). Returns one line per element.

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": "find_elements"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rowNo
roleNo
groupNo
queryNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose output granularity ('Returns one line per element'), which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema, but it omits how multiple filters combine (AND vs OR), pagination/limits, and behavior on zero matches.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the facets, then return shape in a second short sentence. Both sentences earn their place, though the facet enumeration makes the first sentence long and slightly dense.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 4-optional-param search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers every parameter and the return granularity, which is most of the need. It still leaves filter-combination semantics and result limits unstated, which an agent would want before invoking it.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description maps all four parameters to meaning: query searches name/problem/test words, role takes values like dev/lead/plat/qa, group takes security/verification, and row takes task/change/system/organisation. This substantially compensates for the empty schema, with only minor gaps around matching semantics.

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?

Specific verb (find) plus resource (elements), and it enumerates the search facets it supports: name/problem/test words, role, group, and row. This is clearly a multi-facet search tool, distinct in kind from get_element or overview, though it never names those siblings to reinforce the split.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The facet list implies when to use it (when you want to filter or search rather than fetch a known element), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs get_element, no statement about when it is inappropriate, and no mention that all filters are optional.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources