Skip to main content
Glama

music360_list_obra

Lista registros de obra do tenant atual.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
searchNo
order_byNoCampo para ordenacao (ex.: data_lancamento/lancamento, nome, atualizacao, criacao). Para produto fonografico, "lancamento" e "mais recente" significam data_lancamento. Quando omitido, usa ordenacao padrao da entidade.
per_pageNo
order_dirNoDirecao da ordenacao: ASC crescente, DESC decrescente (padrao).
response_profileNoPerfil de resposta. Listagens usam summary por padrão; sensitive exige admin.
sensitive_access_purposeNoFinalidade operacional obrigatória quando response_profile=sensitive ou include_sensitive_details=true.
include_sensitive_detailsNoRetorna detalhes sensíveis mínimos quando autorizado por escopo admin. Padrão: false.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesResultado paginado.
successYesIndica se a operacao foi bem-sucedida.
entity_typeYesTipo da entidade consultada.

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only says 'lists records'. It fails to mention pagination, search/filter behavior, sensitive-data handling, or permission requirements.

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?

The description is a single clear sentence with no filler, and it is appropriately front-loaded. It is concise but comes at the expense of necessary detail for a tool with 8 parameters.

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?

The description is incomplete relative to the tool's complexity. It does not explain the tenant-scoping context, response profiles, sensitive access, or how this list relates to the broader API. An output schema exists but does not cover these contextual requirements.

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?

The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema. While the schema covers 63% of parameters, the description does not compensate for the remaining gaps (e.g., page, per_page, search semantics) as required when coverage is below 80%.

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 clearly states the tool lists 'obra' records for the current tenant (verb+resource+scope). It is unambiguous and aligns with the tool name, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like music360_list_obra_titulares or music360_get_obra.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use list_obra vs get_obra, or how to handle sensitive profiles). There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, targeting a specific entity or reference data. The get/list distinction is standard and unambiguous. Reference list tools are also clearly separated by domain.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with the prefix 'music360_'. Verbs are consistently 'get', 'list', 'search', or 'healthcheck', and the naming is uniform throughout. No mixed conventions or vague verbs.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools, the set is quite large, exceeding the threshold where tool count becomes unwieldy. While the domain has many entity types, the lack of mutation tools means many similar read-only list/get tools inflate the count without adding corresponding functionality.

Completeness1/5

The tool set is severely incomplete for a management system: there are no create, update, or delete tools for any entity. The reference list tools explicitly reference create tools like 'music360_create_fonograma' that do not exist, leaving clear dead ends and an inability to perform core operations.

Resources