Skip to main content
Glama

QRStuff MCP Server

Get top performing date

get_top_performing_date
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the user asks which day had the most scans. Read-only.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_top_performing_date"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scopeNoaccount for everything, project for one project (needs idproject), qrcode for one code (needs idqrcode and its idproject).account
end_dateNoEnd of the period, YYYY-MM-DD. Leave empty for today. Always send it when the user names a period.
idqrcodeNoQR code ID from `list_qrcodes`. Required when scope is qrcode. Never guess an ID.
idprojectNoProject ID from `list_projects`. Required when scope is project or qrcode. Never guess an ID.
start_dateNoStart of the period, YYYY-MM-DD. Leave empty for the last 30 days. Always send it when the user names a period.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNo
scansNo
total_scanNo
percentage_of_totalNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / end_date / description
      Previous value: -"End date YYYY-MM-DD. REQUIRED when the user asks for a specific period; do not omit if they mention dates. Defaults to today only when no range given."New value: +"End of the period, YYYY-MM-DD. Leave empty for today. Always send it when the user names a period."
    • changedInput schema / properties / idproject / description
      Previous value: -"Project ID. Required when scope=project or qrcode."New value: +"Project ID from `list_projects`. Required when scope is project or qrcode. Never guess an ID."
    • changedInput schema / properties / idqrcode / description
      Previous value: -"QR code ID. Required when scope=qrcode."New value: +"QR code ID from `list_qrcodes`. Required when scope is qrcode. Never guess an ID."
    • changedInput schema / properties / scope / description
      Previous value: -"Scope: account (default), project, or qrcode"New value: +"account for everything, project for one project (needs idproject), qrcode for one code (needs idqrcode and its idproject)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / start_date / description
      Previous value: -"Start date YYYY-MM-DD. REQUIRED when the user asks for a specific period; do not omit if they mention dates. Defaults to 30 days ago only when no range given."New value: +"Start of the period, YYYY-MM-DD. Leave empty for the last 30 days. Always send it when the user names a period."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the description's "Read-only." merely restates structured data. It adds no extra behavioral context such as default period, scope behavior, or how ties are handled.

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 trigger condition is front-loaded in a single efficient sentence. However, the trailing "Read-only." is redundant with annotations and does not earn its place.

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?

With an output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description need not restate return format or mechanics. It is complete enough for a simple read tool, though a brief note on default scope/period or how it differs from get_scans_by_date would remove residual ambiguity.

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%, and every parameter includes its own guidance (defaults, enum meanings, ID sourcing rules). The description contributes nothing about parameters, which is acceptable given the schema does the work, so the baseline of 3 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?

The description states a concrete outcome: identifying the day with the most scans, which is more specific than the tool name alone. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings like get_scans_by_date or get_top_performing_location, leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing between them.

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?

It gives a clear trigger condition: use when the user asks which day had the most scans. It does not name alternatives or describe when not to use it (e.g., when the user wants a per-date breakdown, which belongs to get_scans_by_date), so it falls short of the top score.

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