Skip to main content
Glama

query

Query a domain's things by their standing values: one thing line per thing with the fields asked, each cell the standing value with its record's hash and three stamps (read, captured, in_force), clocked — the windows the clock read it by, each saying whether it holds the day the row answers for, opened_from where an edition opens it later and how it ends — and also_stated_by, the hashes of the records of its work that give the same value again, beside also_stated, the other values the records give it, each with its record; and unread_captures where its work also holds captures with no extracted text of about its document's size, any of which may be a later edition, so that the clock serves the value as in force on no day, counting the thing as held_back beside undeclared. In a paid domain the records a newer reading replaced ride neither list: a cell counts them as earlier, its earlier readings, which a key opens at the HTTP door. where holds the clauses — {"rate.max": "100 USD", "basis": "per ton"} — a bare field name meaning .eq, * meaning .is=any and none .is=none; columns adds cells; in_force and as_of are the clocks, and in a paid domain a past day on either is keyed, the key travelling in the Authorization header at the HTTP door. The first line is a view line; an empty answer says cause and instead; a refusal names its cause.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
as_ofNoA day, YYYY-MM-DD, or an RFC 3339 instant: what the index held at the end of that day.
limitNoRows per page; the default is 20.
scopeYes`/<domain>`, `/<domain>/<collection>/<publisher>` or `…/<work>`: the things the table selects among. The root has no fields.
whereNoThe clauses, every one holding of the same thing: keys `<field>`, `<field>.eq`, `<field>.min`, `<field>.max` or `<field>.is`; a bound's value is a number with its unit, `.is` takes `any` or `none`.
cursorNoA row's `cursor`, passed back as given: the page resumes after that row.
columnsNoFields to add as cells without selecting on them.
in_forceNoA day, YYYY-MM-DD: the value in force that day by the publisher's own dates.
with_undeclaredNoUnder `in_force`, list the things whose values declare no window, marked.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations are not provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses many behaviors: the format of the output (view line, error responses), paid domain authorization via HTTP header, and special handling of replaced records (`earlier`). However, it doesn't explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but given the query nature, that's implied. It also doesn't mention performance or rate limits, but covers most operational aspects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense and lengthy, with complex sentences that pack a lot of information. It is not front-loaded; it starts with the output format before addressing the parameters. While every sentence carries meaning, the structure could be improved by separating the high-level purpose from detailed output specifications.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is quite thorough, explaining output structure, error handling, and edge cases like paid domains. It lacks explicit return value details, but the description itself provides a comprehensive picture of what the tool returns, so it compensates for the missing output schema.

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%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds some context, like how `where` clauses map to operators (`*` meaning `.is=any`) and how `columns` adds cells. However, it doesn't go beyond the schema for many parameters, so a baseline score 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 queries a domain's things by their standing values, specifying the output format (one line per thing with fields, hashes, stamps) and the filtering capabilities. It distinguishes itself from siblings by describing its unique focus on standing values and clocked windows, making it distinct from search and trace.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides detailed guidance on when to use this tool, including the structure of `where` clauses, the use of `columns`, and the clocks (`in_force`, `as_of`). It also explains behaviors in paid domains and how to handle pagination via `cursor`. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives but gives enough context for selecting among siblings.

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.

Resources