Skip to main content
Glama

Qanvo Stock Screener

Edit screen thresholds (app)

qanvo_app_thresholds
Read-only

App only: changes a screen's numeric thresholds (an edited filter chip) and reruns the same SQL. No AI, no credits.

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": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>",
      "query_id": "<query_id>",
      "values": "<values>"
    },
    "name": "qanvo_app_thresholds"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
marketNo
valuesYes
query_idYes
session_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description says the tool 'changes' thresholds and reruns SQL, which indicates a mutation, while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This directly contradicts the structured safety signal. The note about no AI/credits is helpful, but the write-versus-read contradiction is serious.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence with the scope and action front-loaded. The cost note is brief and earns its place by clarifying the no-credit behavior.

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 four-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and contradictory annotations, the description leaves too much unspecified. It does not explain the required identifiers, the values structure, or what rerunning the SQL returns.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It gives some semantic context for threshold values and rerunning a SQL query, but it does not explain session_id, query_id, market, or the nested shape of values.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: changing a screen's numeric thresholds and rerunning the same SQL. 'App only' gives useful scope, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling query tools such as market_query or refine_market_query.

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 'App only' prefix implies this should be used in app screen contexts, and 'No AI, no credits' hints at its cheaper execution path. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance or when-not-to-use condition.

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