Skip to main content
Glama

BotSpot: AI Trading, Backtests and Bots

Query deployment artifact data

query_deployment_artifact
Read-onlyIdempotent

Runs a read-only DuckDB SELECT against queryable deployment artifacts listed in the run manifest. For replacement-deployment history, pass up to 10 exact {deploymentId, runId} targets; they are owner-checked, queried concurrently, and returned with both IDs on every row under one global maxRows limit. Never combine a runId from one deployment with another deploymentId. Use table name data, the same as backtest query_csv. For kind-based queries such as agent_detail, the tool queries all manifest-listed hot/chunk Parquet or CSV files for that kind as one logical table. Use agent_detail plus memory_events/memory_retrievals/memory_state for questions like 'why did this live bot buy NVDA?' or 'why did it not buy anything?'. When summarizing team advice, preserve each recommendation and its stated reason, then explain the trader choice and actual order outcome. A brief reason per adviser is enough; separate earlier advice from the latest run and never invent an unrecorded reason for a hold. Results are bounded to protect agent context. For agent_detail, start with aggregate SQL plus at least one ordered timeline/excerpt query with LIMIT; aggregate counts alone are not enough to answer what the agent was doing. Use LEFT(long_text_column, N) for prompt/context/call text fields; never raw-select full effective_system_prompt, base_system_prompt, runtime_context_text, context_text, memory_state_text, event_payload_json, event_text, summary, or final_text. Aggregating a long text column does not make it safe: do not use MAX(summary), MAX(final_text), ANY_VALUE(summary), or ANY_VALUE(final_text) unless the aggregate is wrapped in LEFT(..., N). Useful agent_detail examples: SELECT event_kind, tool_name, COUNT(*) AS events FROM data GROUP BY event_kind, tool_name ORDER BY events DESC; SELECT call_index, event_index, event_kind, tool_name, LEFT(event_text, 500) AS event_text, call_input_tokens, call_output_tokens, call_latency_ms FROM data ORDER BY call_index, event_index LIMIT 50; SELECT call_index, MIN(timestamp) AS first_ts, MAX(timestamp) AS last_ts, MAX(agent_name) AS agent_name, LEFT(MAX(summary), 500) AS summary_excerpt, LEFT(MAX(final_text), 500) AS final_text_excerpt, MAX(call_input_tokens) AS input_tokens, MAX(call_output_tokens) AS output_tokens, MAX(call_latency_ms) AS latency_ms FROM data GROUP BY call_index ORDER BY call_index LIMIT 50. For scheduler AI-agent verification, query agent_detail for event_kind/tool_name counts, thinking events, call_thinking_tokens, call_input_tokens, call_output_tokens, call_latency_ms, summary excerpts, and final_text excerpts; query memory_events/memory_retrievals/memory_state to prove memory writes, retrieval provenance, and durable memory state across scheduled runs. Use show_bot_activity first for current account performance, holdings and recorded orders. Separate recorded bot telemetry readers are for targeted bot-attribution or fill investigations, not duplicate performance reports.

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": {
      "sql": "<sql>"
    },
    "name": "query_deployment_artifact"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sqlYes
kindNoagent_detail
runIdNo
maxRowsNo
targetsNo
artifactKeyNo
deploymentIdNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: targets are owner-checked and queried concurrently, returned rows include both IDs, one global `maxRows` applies, and results are bounded to protect context. It also discloses safety rules for long-text fields and explains that aggregate queries are supported without making raw long text safe.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The opening sentence is front-loaded and clear, but the rest is a dense wall of text with repeated long-text safety warnings and multiple SQL examples. Much of it is useful, but it would be easier to apply if the operational rules, safety rules, and examples were separated more cleanly.

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 complex 7-parameter tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is unusually complete: it covers query scope, kind-based behavior, target semantics, row limits, safety constraints, and sibling-tool usage. It still leaves `artifactKey` and some standalone parameter behavior undocumented, which keeps it short of fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does for `sql`, `kind`, `targets`, `runId`, and `maxRows`: it defines the allowed table name, kind-based scope, target shape, owner-checking, concurrency, and the global row bound. The main gap is `artifactKey` and standalone `deploymentId`, which are not explained in the 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 states a specific verb and resource: a read-only DuckDB SELECT against queryable deployment artifacts listed in the run manifest. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming `show_bot_activity`, `query_csv`, and the separate bot telemetry readers, so an agent can tell what this tool is for without opening the 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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use `targets` for replacement-deployment history, use `kind` for kind-based queries such as `agent_detail`, and use `show_bot_activity` first for current account performance. It also states when not to use it, e.g. separate bot telemetry readers are for targeted bot-attribution or fill investigations rather than duplicate performance reports.

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.