Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Mondovo

by com.mondovo.app
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List a customer's portal records

list_owned_records
Read-onlyIdempotent

List the records a customer owns in the site's client portal (documents, orders, cases — collections set to customer-owned). Name the customer by email or contact id, or omit both to list every customer's owned records (each with its owner_contact_id). PERSONAL DATA: use only to answer the user; never copy it into site content.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailNoThe customer's email.
site_idYesThe site the collection belongs to
user_goalNoOptional: the user's goal behind this call, in one short sentence of plain words (e.g. "add a page so customers can book tables"). No names, emails or other personal details.
contact_idNoOr their contact id.
collection_typeNoLimit to one portal collection (e.g. "client_document").

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / user_goal
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: the user's goal behind this call, in one short sentence of plain words (e.g. \"add a page so customers can book tables\"). No names, emails or other personal details.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: that an unscoped call returns all customers' records with owner_contact_id on each, and a data-handling rule ('never copy it into site content'). No return format or volume/pagination caveats are given.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the definition, then the addressing modes, then the privacy constraint. Every clause carries information; nothing is restated from the title or annotations.

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?

With five parameters, annotations present and no output schema, the description covers what to pass, what happens when the customer is omitted, and a privacy rule. It could say more about result size/limits and how collection_type interacts with the customer-owned filter, but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 real meaning beyond the schema: the email/contact_id pair are alternatives, and omitting both is a valid mode that changes the result set (each row carries owner_contact_id). collection_type and site_id are left to the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List the records a customer owns in the site's client portal') and immediately narrows the scope to customer-owned collections, naming example types (documents, orders, cases). That scoping is enough to separate it from sibling listers like list_collection_items or list_contacts without opening their schemas.

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 states the two ways to target a customer (email or contact id) and the explicit fallback ('omit both to list every customer's owned records'), plus a usage constraint on personal data. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for non-customer-owned collections, so routing guidance is contextual rather than explicit.

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

All Mondovo 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