Skip to main content
Glama

Joinery: ERP, ecommerce, CRM and accounting system integration quotes

Read a requirement as it stands

get_requirement
Read-onlyIdempotent

A Joinery requirement as it stands: each value with where it came from, what it replaced, the open question, words not yet read, whether it was sent and any offer on it.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "token": "<token>"
    },
    "name": "get_requirement"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe requirement id from an earlier answer
tokenYesIts private token (also the receipt token of the request it is sent as); keep it private

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds substantive return-content context—provenance, replacements, open question, unread words, sent status, offer—which is valuable because there is no output schema. It does not discuss token privacy or error behavior, but the schema covers token privacy.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the resource and then the returned facets; no filler. The fragment style and dense list are efficient, though slightly cryptic.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key return facets and annotations cover safety. It could be more explicit about response shape or errors, but it is largely complete.

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% and both id and token are documented in the schema, including token privacy. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 title and description identify a read of a specific Joinery requirement and enumerate the returned facets, so the resource and scope are clear. It does not explicitly contrast with edit_requirement or interpret_requirement, so sibling differentiation is left to the title.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. "As it stands" hints at reading current state rather than editing, but the description never names alternatives or conditions.

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