query_customer_export
Query a staged synthetic customer export. This is a monitored decoy boundary.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Agent Observatory Digital Twin
TDQS
D1.6/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description hints at monitoring ('monitored decoy boundary') but does not disclose important traits such as potential alerts, consequences, or whether it returns real data. This is insufficient for a tool with no structural metadata.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences but lacks substance. It is under-specification rather than concise efficiency. Every sentence adds minimal value and leaves significant gaps.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain return values, side effects, or usage constraints, leaving the agent unable to safely or correctly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning to the parameters ('limit' and 'query'). Without any textual explanation, the agent must rely solely on the schema, which lists types but no semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Query a staged synthetic customer export' which identifies the verb and resource, but 'staged synthetic' and 'decoy boundary' are ambiguous. It does not clearly define what the tool does in practical terms or how it differs from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of 'monitored decoy boundary' implies caution but does not provide explicit usage context or exclusions.
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.
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of the synthetic digital twin environment: inspecting cloud resources, inspecting identity, listing projects, querying customer data (decoy), reading runbooks, and rotating tokens (decoy). No overlapping purposes.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: inspect_*, list_*, query_*, read_*, rotate_*. No mixing of conventions.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for monitoring and interacting with a digital twin. The count is neither too thin nor too heavy for its apparent purpose.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers key inspection and interaction actions for a digital twin, including environment, identity, projects, runbooks, and decoy boundaries. Minor gaps like a general 'list' or 'search' tool are acceptable for the synthetic context.