SetLatch

Add a system to the data map

add_data_map_system

Add a system the site keeps data in (check get_data_map first; to change an existing one use update_data_map_system). When holds_pii is true, every request verified from now on gets a task for it; for requests already open, add_missing_tasks adds them.

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": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "type": "<type>"
    },
    "name": "add_data_map_system"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	What the team calls it, usually the product name (e.g. "Klaviyo").
`site`	Yes	The site: its slug from list_sites (its id or exact name also work).
`type`	Yes	The kind of system.
`notes`	No	Where to look and how, for whoever handles the task.
`holds_pii`	No	Whether it holds personal data (default true). Only systems that do get tasks on requests.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedNov 6, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / holds_pii / description

Previous value: -"Whether it holds personal data (default true)."New value: +"Whether it holds personal data (default true). Only systems that do get tasks on requests."

addedInput schema / properties / name / description

Added value: +"What the team calls it, usually the product name (e.g. \"Klaviyo\")."

addedInput schema / properties / type / description
```
Added value: +"The kind of system."
```

First observedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds the genuinely non-obvious side effect that holds_pii=true causes every subsequently verified request to get a task, and that retroactive coverage requires a separate tool. It does not say what happens on a duplicate name, which is the one behavioral question left open given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, sibling routing, and side effects. The parenthetical alternatives are front-loaded rather than buried at the end.

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 five-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, routing, and side effects well. The only gap is that it never says what comes back on success (presumably the created system and its id), which an agent may need before chaining further calls.

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 beyond the schema for holds_pii by explaining the downstream consequence of the flag rather than just its type. The other four parameters are left entirely to the schema, which is adequate given their documented coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Add a system the site keeps data in") and immediately distinguishes itself from get_data_map and update_data_map_system. An agent can tell which of the three data-map tools to call without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing: check get_data_map first, use update_data_map_system to change an existing entry, and add_missing_tasks for requests already open. Both the alternative and the condition that selects it are named, leaving nothing to inference.

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

All SetLatch tools Inspect

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

Need Help?