Skip to main content
Glama

SPLIDIA — operational notes and capabilities

by com.splidia

Match a need to CSIDIA capabilities

match_use_case

Data la descrizione libera di un'esigenza operativa, restituisce le capacità del gruppo CSIDIA più pertinenti, con il perché (termini che hanno fatto match), il sito di riferimento, il modello di erogazione, gli articoli correlati e il passo successivo. Se non c'è corrispondenza lo dice e restituisce il profilo sintetico. / Given a free-text operational need, returns the most relevant CSIDIA capabilities with the reason for the match, reference site, delivery model, related articles and next step.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
needYesDescrizione libera dell'esigenza o del problema / free-text description of the need
limitNoNumero massimo di capacità (default 3)
sectorNoSettore di riferimento, id o nome (es. manufacturing, energy, logistics, public-sector, healthcare, defence, telecomunicazioni, data-center, industria) / sector id or name
languageNoLingua dei testi (default it) / text language

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return format (matched capabilities with reason, site, etc.) and behavior on no match (says so and returns synthetic profile). Does not mention auth, rate limits, or side effects, but adequately covers core behavior.

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?

Two bilingual sentences, front-loaded with Italian then English. Compact but slightly redundant due to bilingual nature. No waste; every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains return values (reason, site, etc.) and failure case. However, it does not reference optional parameters like limit, sector, or language in the description text. Still sufficient for a matching tool with good schema coverage.

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 description coverage is 100%, achieving baseline. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema definitions (e.g., 'free-text need' is already in schema). No parameter-specific elaboration in description.

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's verb ('restituisce/returns') and resource ('capacità del gruppo CSIDIA / CSIDIA capabilities'). It distinguishes itself from siblings: 'capabilities' likely lists all, while this tool matches a specific need. The bilingual text reinforces the specific action.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use (when you have a free-text need) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use. No comparison to sibling tools like 'capabilities' or 'search', so context-aware selection is left to the agent.

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

All SPLIDIA — operational notes and capabilities toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: capabilities provides a static overview, fetch retrieves full articles, match_use_case maps needs to capabilities, and search finds articles. No overlap in functionality.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names mix parts of speech and styles: 'capabilities' (noun), 'fetch' (bare verb), 'match_use_case' (verb_noun with underscore), 'search' (bare verb). While each is clear, there is no consistent naming pattern.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is well-scoped for the server's purpose—providing a service catalogue and searchable operational notes. Each tool earns its place without unnecessary excess or glaring omissions.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for the intended use: viewing the profile, searching articles, fetching full text, and matching use cases. No obvious gaps for a static catalogue and search system.

Resources