Skip to main content
Glama

Datailo: one MCP connection to tenders, EU regulation and law

by com.datailo
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

One workflow

datailo_workflow
Read-onlyIdempotent

One playbook's steps from the service itself, each annotated with the exact datailo_invoke call to run it through this connection. service='datailo' with a job name returns the whole job: services to enable, stages with their playbooks, checkpoints and the work-product template.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
serviceYes
sessionNoThe `session` value datailo_connect_verify returned. Pass it on every Datailo call in this conversation; omit it when the user connected with Sign in (OAuth) or a key.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / session / description
      Previous value: -"The `session` value datailo_connect_verify returned, when this client keeps no connection session. Pass it on every Datailo call in this conversation; omit it when the user connected with Sign in (OAuth) or a key."New value: +"The `session` value datailo_connect_verify returned. Pass it on every Datailo call in this conversation; omit it when the user connected with Sign in (OAuth) or a key."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / session
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "The `session` value datailo_connect_verify returned, when this client keeps no connection session. Pass it on every Datailo call in this conversation; omit it when the user connected with Sign in (OAuth) or a key.",
+  "title": "Session"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the return structure (services to enable, stages with playbooks, checkpoints, work-product template) and that each step is annotated with the exact invoke call. This contextual behavior is not present in the structured fields.

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, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds parameter-specific behavior and return contents, but it is somewhat dense and mixes usage guidance with output description. No wasted words, though the structure could be clearer by separating parameter semantics from return details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only tool with annotations carrying the safety profile, the description provides a decent overview of what is returned but lacks explicit examples, parameter value constraints, and the exact output schema (no output schema exists). It also does not explain the relationship to datailo_invoke calls in enough detail for an agent to immediately construct a correct invocation without further exploration. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 33% (only 'session' has a description). The description compensates partially by explaining that 'service' should be 'datailo' and that 'name' refers to a job name. However, it does not provide examples, allowed values, or format for 'service' beyond 'datailo', nor does it clarify how 'name' maps to a workflow external ID versus internal ID. The added meaning is useful but incomplete.

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 identifies the tool as returning one playbook's steps from the service, each annotated with the exact datailo_invoke call. It specifies the resource (one workflow) and differentiates from the sibling datailo_workflows by singular 'One' versus plural, so an agent can distinguish them without inspecting schemas.

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 gives a conditional hint ('service='datailo' with a job name returns the whole job') but never explicitly states when to use this tool instead of alternatives like datailo_workflows or datailo_invoke. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the name and sibling list.

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

All Datailo: one MCP connection to tenders, EU regulation and law 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