Skip to main content
Glama

Sliq

by com.getsliq
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Classify Segment Group

classify_segment_group

Classification costs credits (a flat per-person rate). The return carries the count of people the run will process and the credits it will charge (exact — the same population the run bills), so you can tell the user the cost; a run never charges more than the balance. If the balance can't cover the estimate the run is not enqueued — the return says so, and you should relay it. Dict with the in-scope person count and estimated credit cost, plus whether the run was enqueued or blocked for insufficient credits. Enqueued -> {"enqueued": true, "group_id", "person_count", "estimated_credits"}. Blocked -> {"enqueued": false, "reason": "insufficient_credits", "group_id", "person_count", "estimated_credits", "balance"}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
forceNoRe-classify people already tagged for this group.
group_idYesThe segment group to classify (from list_segment_groups).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / senders
      Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "items": {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null,
-  "description": "In a shared workspace, the teammate email addresses whose people to tag — people\nwith a prospect owned by one of them. Omit to tag everyone in scope (including people\nno teammate has a prospect for). Addresses outside the workspace match nobody."
-}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / senders
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "In a shared workspace, the teammate email addresses whose people to tag — people\nwith a prospect owned by one of them. Omit to tag everyone in scope (including people\nno teammate has a prospect for). Addresses outside the workspace match nobody."
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it is asynchronous (~15 min tagging delay), costs credits at a flat per-person rate, never charges more than the balance, and is simply not enqueued when the balance is insufficient.

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?

Front-loaded summary sentence followed by usage, cost, and return semantics, each earning its place. No redundant restatement of the name or annotations.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Even with no output schema, the description documents the return shape for both enqueued and blocked outcomes, the credit/balance semantics, and the async nature. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning over the schema: without force only not-yet-classified people are processed, while force triggers a full re-tag after editing the group or its tags. This clarifies the practical effect of the flag.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Kick off classification of the group's in-scope canonical people, in the background.' It also defines scope (campaigns and teammates) and distinguishes itself from the sibling classify_message_tag_group and the read-side get_segment_rates / query_segment_people.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: 'call this right after creating a group to tag the people already there now, or with force=True to re-classify everyone.' It also says results are not immediate and directs the agent to get_segment_rates / query_segment_people afterward, and to relay blocked runs.

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

All Sliq 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