Skip to main content
Glama

Harness Atlas

by io.github.pawel-kowalczyk

find_alternative

Cross-reference a wire-harness component part number (connectors, terminals, seals, cable protection) against the XrefBase equivalence graph. Results are grouped by how strong the relationship is, and the groups are not interchangeable: verified_replacements are corroborated drop-in or manufacturer-superseded parts; functional_equivalents do the same job but need engineering review; same_series and variants are the same family in a different configuration and are NOT substitutes; mates_with is the counterpart connector the part plugs into, which is specifically not a substitute for it. Every claim carries a confidence level and, where one exists, a public source URL.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
part_numberYesManufacturer part number to cross-reference. Punctuation and case are normalised, so '1-967616-1' and '19676161' both match.
manufacturerNoOptional original manufacturer name. Accepts known aliases ('TE', 'H+S'). Disambiguates when one MPN exists under several manufacturers.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains non-interchangeable groups, specifically that 'mates_with' is not a substitute, and mentions confidence levels and source URLs. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or error conditions, but the lookup nature is clear.

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?

The description is a single paragraph that front-loads the main action and uses backticks for group names. It is dense but efficient; every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly tightened by reducing some redundant phrasing around group explanations.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return categories, their meanings, and the attached confidence/source fields. This is sufficient for an agent to interpret results correctly and makes the tool's behavior well-rounded.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions part_number and manufacturer implicitly, while the schema's descriptions already cover normalization and aliases. No additional parameter context is provided.

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 cross-references wire-harness component part numbers against the XrefBase equivalence graph, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling find_manufacturer by focusing on equivalence relationships rather than manufacturer details.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context on how to interpret result groups and warns that groups are not interchangeable, which guides appropriate use. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over the sibling find_manufacturer or provide exclusions, so it falls short of a full 5.

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

All Harness Atlas 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one finds alternative components, the other searches for manufacturers. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools follow a consistent 'find_[noun]' pattern, making the naming predictable and uniform.

Tool Count3/5

Two tools is border-line thin for a directory service, especially since one tool is explicitly described as under construction and returns no matches. The count feels slightly low but not unreasonable for a narrow search-focused purpose.

Completeness2/5

The manufacturer search seems functional, but the alternative-parts tool is non-functional by design, leaving a major gap in the stated purpose. There are also no CRUD operations or listing capabilities, making the surface severely limited for a full 'atlas' service.

Resources