Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

schedule-iii

by com.datavrn
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Confirm column mapping

confirm_column_mapping
Destructive

Confirm the column→field mapping for a staged upload and run validation. Returns the full validation result (row counts, warnings, blocking issues). Mapping suggestions are never auto-applied — pass exactly the mapping your user approved. Review any warnings with your user before ingesting.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mappingYes
optionsNo
save_asNo
upload_idYesThe upload session id returned by upload_trial_balance.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / options / properties / eligible_fte_source_binding
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "contractor_scope_evidence_snapshot_id": {
+      "pattern": "^[0-9a-f]{8}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[1-5][0-9a-f]{3}-[89ab][0-9a-f]{3}-[0-9a-f]{12}$",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "roster_source_snapshot_id": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "$ref": "#/properties/options/properties/eligible_fte_source_binding/properties/contractor_scope_evidence_snapshot_id"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "version": {
+      "const": "eligible-fte-source-binding/v1",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "version",
+    "contractor_scope_evidence_snapshot_id"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With annotations already marking the tool destructive and not read-only, the description adds useful behavioral detail: it runs validation and returns row counts, warnings, and blocking issues; suggestions are never auto-applied; warnings should be reviewed before ingest. It still does not explain what the destructive confirmation changes or whether it is reversible.

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 three sentences, front-loads the action and result, and includes only operational constraints that earn their place. No redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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?

The description gives a coherent high-level workflow and says what validation returns, which compensates for the absent output schema. However, given four parameters, a nested options object, and destructive behavior, it does not provide enough detail on options, save_as, or destructive effects to be complete.

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 only covers the mapping parameter conceptually ('column→field mapping', user-approved) and does not explain upload_id, options, or save_as. With schema description coverage at 25% and a nested options object, this leaves most parameter meaning to the schema's bare types and enums.

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: 'Confirm the column→field mapping for a staged upload and run validation.' An agent can identify the operation, but it does not distinguish it from sibling confirmation tools such as confirm_centre_mappings or confirm_groupings.

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?

It establishes context—confirming a mapping for a staged upload—and gives explicit constraints: suggestions are never auto-applied, pass exactly the user-approved mapping, and review warnings before ingesting. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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

All schedule-iii 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