Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

PensionHunter

by ai.pensionhunter
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

GPFR: people registered for a fund

gpfr_fund_count
Read-onlyIdempotent

For fund-side agents: how many confirmed people are registered for a pension fund, shown from 10 upwards, otherwise fewer than 10. An aggregate only.

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": {
      "fund": "<fund>"
    },
    "name": "gpfr_fund_count"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fundYesA GPFR fund key (from gpfr_info) or the fund's name.
languageNoOptional. Default en. GPFR is live in 24 languages: en, ar, da, de, es, fa, fr, hi, id, it, ja, ko, nb, nl, pl, pt, pt-BR, ro, ru, sv, th, tl, tr, zh. bg, uk, vi are answered in English.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / language / description
      Previous value: -"Optional. ISO 639-1 code for our sentences and the consent text: en, ar, da, de, es, fa, fr, hi, id, it, ja, ko, nb, nl, pl, pt, pt-BR, ro, ru, sv, th, tl, tr, zh. Default en. Any other language is answered in English, with languageNote saying so."New value: +"Optional. Default en. GPFR is live in 24 languages: en, ar, da, de, es, fa, fr, hi, id, it, ja, ko, nb, nl, pl, pt, pt-BR, ro, ru, sv, th, tl, tr, zh. bg, uk, vi are answered in English."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": false,
-  "properties": {
-    "count": {
-      "type": [
-        "integer",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    },
-    "fund": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "key": {
-      "type": [
-        "string",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    },
-    "language": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "languageNote": {
-      "description": "Present only when the language asked for is not a GPFR language: why the answer and the consent text are in English.",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "note": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "shown": {
-      "enum": [
-        "number",
-        "fewer",
-        "none"
-      ],
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "threshold": {
-      "type": "integer"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "fund",
-    "key",
-    "shown",
-    "count",
-    "threshold",
-    "note"
-  ],
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: small-cohort privacy masking ('shown from 10 upwards, otherwise fewer than 10') and that only aggregates are returned, not individual records. Auth and rate-limit behavior remain unstated.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, no filler, with the core purpose and audience front-loaded and the aggregation behavior immediately after. Every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the return semantics (counts above 10, bucketed 'fewer than 10', aggregate only). For a two-parameter read-only counter that is nearly sufficient; only the exact response shape and any rate limits are left implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'fund' and the optional 'language' fully documented in the schema, including the 24 supported languages. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and resource: counting confirmed people registered for a pension fund, and calls out that it is 'An aggregate only.' That separates it from list-style siblings like gpfr_register, though no sibling is named explicitly and the 'fund-side agents' scoping is the only routing cue.

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 phrase 'For fund-side agents' identifies the intended caller, which is a light usage hint, but the description never states when to prefer this over gpfr_register, gpfr_info, or gpfr_status, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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

All PensionHunter 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