Skip to main content
Glama

DatoQA

by dev.workers.bhazarstudio.datoqa
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

get_record

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get an unexpired record with provenance and its explicit verification level. Source/schema validation is not independent factual verification.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesOpaque record id returned by a DatoQA data response. Reuse it exactly; do not invent an id.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
dataYesSource-specific payload; inspect units, observation dates, nulls and source notes.
domainYes
citationYes
freshnessYes
provenanceYes
display_labelNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • changedOutput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / provenance / properties / verification_level / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "official_source_and_schema_checked",
-  "method_specific"
-]New value: +[
+  "official_source_and_schema_checked",
+  "public_aggregator_and_schema_checked",
+  "method_specific"
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts not in the annotations: records returned are unexpired, and source/schema validation must not be mistaken for independent factual verification. It stops short of describing error behavior for a missing/expired id.

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 short sentences, the primary purpose front-loaded, with the interpretive caveat placed second. No filler, no restating of the tool name or schema.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The gap is routing: with 24 siblings an agent is given no cue for choosing this tool, and nothing is said about what happens when the record is expired or absent.

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?

There is exactly one parameter and schema_description_coverage is 100%; the schema already explains the id is opaque, must be reused exactly, and must not be invented. The description adds no parameter guidance at all, so the baseline 3 for fully-covered schemas applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get an unexpired record') plus the returned payload ('provenance and its explicit verification level'). The 'unexpired' qualifier meaningfully narrows scope beyond the bare tool name, though it never distinguishes itself from any of the 24 sibling get_*/list_* tools.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to use this versus the sibling retrieval tools (get_evidence, catalog, etc.), nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage is only implied by the required id parameter. The closing caveat is about interpreting results, not about tool selection.

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

All DatoQA 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