Skip to main content
Glama

CSIDIA — operational notes and capabilities

by com.csidia

Match a need to CSIDIA capabilities

match_use_case

Data la descrizione libera di un'esigenza operativa, restituisce le capacità del gruppo CSIDIA più pertinenti, con il perché (termini che hanno fatto match), il sito di riferimento, il modello di erogazione, gli articoli correlati e il passo successivo. Se non c'è corrispondenza lo dice e restituisce il profilo sintetico. / Given a free-text operational need, returns the most relevant CSIDIA capabilities with the reason for the match, reference site, delivery model, related articles and next step.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
needYesDescrizione libera dell'esigenza o del problema / free-text description of the need
limitNoNumero massimo di capacità (default 3)
sectorNoSettore di riferimento, id o nome (es. manufacturing, energy, logistics, public-sector, healthcare, defence, telecomunicazioni, data-center, industria) / sector id or name
languageNoLingua dei testi (default it) / text language

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states returns (suggesting read-only) and describes output structure including failure case. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, authentication needs, or rate limits.

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 two sentences (Italian and English) that clearly state purpose and output. It is front-loaded and efficient, though could be slightly more concise by omitting the duplicate languages.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately covers return fields (reason, site, delivery model, articles, next step) and handles the no-match case. Missing some details like error handling or definition of 'synthetic profile', but sufficient for a tool with 4 well-documented parameters.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it only repeats the return structure, which is not parameter-level. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: given a free-text operational need, it returns the most relevant CSIDIA capabilities with match reasons, site, delivery model, related articles, and next step. It also describes behavior on no match. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'capabilities' (likely listing all) or 'search' (generic search).

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 description implies use when matching a free-text need to capabilities, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use 'capabilities' or 'search' instead). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

All CSIDIA — operational notes and capabilities toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: capabilities returns static profile, search finds articles, fetch retrieves full text, and match_use_case dynamically maps needs to capabilities. No functional overlap.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent: 'capabilities' is a noun, while 'fetch', 'search', and 'match_use_case' are verbs. No uniform pattern (e.g., all verbs or all noun_verb).

Tool Count5/5

With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose—providing company info, article search, and use-case matching. No redundancy or unnecessary tools.

Completeness5/5

Covers key operations: profile lookup, article search and retrieval, and intelligent need-to-capability matching. No obvious gaps for the stated domain of operational notes and capabilities.

Resources