Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Data Quality Gate

by ai.contentsweep
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

draft_quality_contract

Save a new unapproved contract version with explicit field types, numeric locale, null decisions and stable rule IDs/actions. Supported: not_null, unique, accepted_values, null_rate, row_count, range. Review before approval.

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": {
      "upload_id": "<upload_id>",
      "contract": "<contract>"
    },
    "name": "draft_quality_contract"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contractYes
parent_idNo
upload_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description adds genuinely useful state semantics (the version is saved unapproved and must be reviewed) and enumerates the supported rule types, but says nothing about what happens on failure, whether repeated calls create duplicate versions, or how parent_id affects versioning.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and the supported rule list attached where it belongs. The telegraphic phrasing ('numeric locale, null decisions') is dense but not padded.

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?

For a mutation whose main payload is an opaque additionalProperties object with zero schema documentation, the description does not give enough shape: no parent_id semantics, no upload_id role, no example of a contract skeleton. The enumerated rule types help but do not close the gap.

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 coverage is 0% across three parameters, one of which is a free-form nested contract object. The description gestures at contract content requirements (field types, numeric locale, null decisions, stable rule IDs) but never explains the upload_id linkage, what parent_id means for versioning, or the structure of the contract payload.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Save a new unapproved contract version'. The word 'unapproved' plus 'Review before approval' implicitly separates it from the approve_quality_contract sibling, though no sibling is named.

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?

Usage is implied by workflow language ('Review before approval') and the unapproved-state framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use rule, no prerequisite for upload_id, and no comparison against draft_quality_baseline or approve_quality_contract.

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

All Data Quality Gate toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources