Skip to main content
Glama

RationalBloks

by io.github.rationalbloks

Get Schema Features Reference

get_schema_reference
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the reference for ADVANCED schema features the templates do not show — read this before adding authorization or derived fields to a schema. Covers: policy (relationship-based read/write authorization with single- and multi-hop membership paths, and the rules that decide whether adopting it is safe — it replaces creator-ownership per table and fails closed on a null link), computed columns (read-only values derived from other columns), constraints (composite uniqueness), audit (append-only audit log), and how user foreign keys are attributed on create.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: __policy__ 'replaces creator-ownership per table and fails closed on a null link,' computed columns are 'read-only,' and __audit__ is 'append-only.' This goes well beyond the annotation metadata.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose and usage instruction, then efficiently enumerates the covered features in a compact list. Every clause adds substantive guidance rather than filler.

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?

For a parameterless reference tool with no output schema, the description is fully sufficient: it names the exact use case, lists the topics covered, and clarifies important safety behaviors. Nothing material is missing for an agent to decide whether to invoke it.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter meaning and the description need not compensate. Per the rubric baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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: 'Get the reference for ADVANCED schema features the templates do not show.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling schema-related getters by emphasizing it covers advanced topics rather than basic template schemas.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool: 'read this before adding authorization or derived fields to a schema.' However, it does not explicitly describe when not to use it or name alternative tools, leaving some room for inference.

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

All RationalBloks 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are clearly differentiated by domain (project vs graph_project) and action (create, get, list, delete). The main ambiguity is get_project vs get_project_info, which both claim to return detailed project information. Otherwise tool boundaries are clear.

Naming Consistency4/5

The server follows a strong verb_noun convention, with parallel naming for graph and non-graph tools (create_project/create_graph_project, deploy_staging/deploy_graph_staging). Minor deviations include bulk_create_graph_nodes and fulltext_search_graph, but patterns remain predictable.

Tool Count2/5

48 tools is a heavy surface, even when accounting for the two parallel product domains (relational and graph). Many tools are near-duplicates across domains, and the count exceeds the 25-tool threshold that feels manageable. It would benefit from consolidation or sub-servers.

Completeness4/5

Both project types have full life-cycle coverage: create, schema management, deployment, rollback, and deletion, plus graph data operations including bulk, search, and traversal. Minor gaps exist, such as no update_graph_relationship and the redundant get_project/get_project_info pair, but agents can accomplish core workflows.

Resources