Skip to main content
Glama

atisbo_support

Read-only

Diagnose Atisbo, including "I connected a source and nothing appeared", "I sent text and no opportunity formed", or "my data is missing". Checks integrations, ingestion, clustering, gates and key scope, then returns a playbook. share_report files only diagnostics + your text. Use atisbo_lookup/atisbo_analyze for backlog.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
areaNoNarrows which checks run. Omit when unsure — the full set costs the same round-trip.
problemYesWhat went wrong, in your words. Do NOT paste customer feedback, document bodies or credentials — this string IS filed if a report is created.
share_reportNoFile a verdict-only report when the problem is not caller-side; false = diagnose only.
observed_errorNoThe failing error string VERBATIM — diagnostics cannot see the failed call, so this is often the only evidence.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
metaYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / data / required
      Previous value: -[
      -  "outcome",
      -  "headline",
      -  "explanation",
      -  "findings",
      -  "next_steps",
      -  "known_issue",
      -  "report_id",
      -  "reported"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "outcome",
      +  "headline",
      +  "explanation",
      +  "findings",
      +  "next_steps",
      +  "reported"
      +]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / meta / required
      Previous value: -[
      -  "contract_version",
      -  "tenant_plan",
      -  "workspace_id",
      -  "workspace_name",
      -  "persona",
      -  "scoring_model",
      -  "gates_applied",
      -  "timestamp"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "tenant_plan",
      +  "workspace_id",
      +  "workspace_name",
      +  "timestamp"
      +]
  3. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • removedOutput schema / properties / meta / properties / contract_version / minLength
      Removed value: -1
    • removedOutput schema / properties / meta / properties / persona / minLength
      Removed value: -1
    • removedOutput schema / properties / meta / properties / scoring_model / minLength
      Removed value: -1
    • removedOutput schema / properties / meta / properties / workspace_id / minLength
      Removed value: -1
    • removedOutput schema / properties / meta / properties / workspace_name / minLength
      Removed value: -1
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description adds real behavioral context the annotations do not carry: which subsystems are checked (integrations, ingestion, clustering, gates, key scope), that the result is a playbook, that diagnostics cannot see the failed call, and that `problem` is filed verbatim in a report. However, it also discloses that share_report files a report — a state-changing side effect — while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so an agent trusting the annotation alone could be misled.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and the concrete failure phrasings, then routing, then privacy constraints — good information ordering with almost no filler. It is dense to the point of reading as a run-on, but every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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 all four parameters are fully documented in the schema. What the description must add — scope of checks, privacy caveats, sibling routing — it delivers, leaving no gap an agent needs to resolve before calling.

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 goes further for the highest-risk parameter by warning that `problem` is filed and must not contain customer feedback, document bodies or credentials, and that `observed_error` is often the only evidence. That is meaning beyond the schema's type/length constraints.

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+resource ("Diagnose Atisbo") and concretizes it with three quoted failure phrasings that map directly to the tool's job. It also names the sibling it is not ("Use atisbo_lookup/atisbo_analyze for backlog"), so an agent can separate it from the other seven atisbo_* tools without opening a 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 trigger situations ("I connected a source and nothing appeared", "my data is missing") and names alternative siblings for the non-diagnostic case. It also tells the agent it can omit `area` when unsure, which is a concrete invocation decision, not just a hint.

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.

Resources