signal_summaries-generate
Generate an AI summary consolidating insights from all completed company signals for a domain
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| __requestBody | Yes | Request body |
Saber
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, which already convey that this operation has side effects and may not be safe to repeat. The description adds minimal behavioral context ('AI summary', 'completed signals') but does not disclose critical details like whether the summary is persisted, if it consumes credits, or if it triggers asynchronous processing. Given the annotations, a 3 is appropriate.
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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and object. There is zero wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
For a tool with one well-documented parameter and functional annotations, the description is mostly complete. However, the lack of an output schema means the description should ideally mention what the caller receives (e.g., a summary string or a stored summary reference). This gap prevents a perfect score.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'domain' parameter, including its format and purpose. The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond restating 'for a domain', so the baseline of 3 is correct.
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 function: generating an AI summary that consolidates insights from completed company signals for a domain. The verb 'Generate' is specific, and the resource is well-defined, distinguishing it from sibling tools like signal_summaries-list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use the tool (to create a new summary from completed signals for a domain), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using signal_summaries-list to retrieve existing summaries. This earns a 4 rather than 5.
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.
TDQS
C2.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as signals-firmographics vs companies-enrich_firmographics, findEmail vs contacts-enrich_work_email, and monitors vs signal_subscriptions vs market_signals. While descriptions add some context, an agent could easily select the wrong tool due to the high similarity in function.
Naming Consistency2/5
Most tools use a resource_subresource-action pattern, but there are inconsistent separators: underscores within some names, hyphens in others (e.g., scoring-assignment-bulk-create), and several camelCase exceptions (findEmail, findEmailBatchGet, getContactResearchByExternalID). This mixed convention makes the tool set feel unpredictable.
Tool Count1/5
With 119 tools, this server vastly exceeds the typical well-scoped range. Even for a comprehensive B2B data platform, the sheer number creates cognitive overload and increases the risk of incorrect tool selection.
Completeness4/5
The server covers an extensive range of operations: enrichment, lists, contacts, signals, subscriptions, monitors, and scoring. Nearly every resource has create, read, update, and delete or lifecycle equivalents, leaving very few practical gaps for the intended use case.