Skip to main content
Glama

Tomba MCP Server

by io.github.tomba-io

Create Flag

create_flag

Report incorrect data for credit recovery

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
valueYes
reasonYes
commentNo
flag_typeYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {}
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "data"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The annotations only include openWorldHint, so the description carries most of the behavioral disclosure burden. It does not clearly state that this is a write/create operation, what side effects occur, or whether flags are created, updated, or replaced. 'Report' is vague about the actual mutation behavior.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It communicates the core purpose efficiently and has no redundancy.

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

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Although the schema and output schema cover field structures and return shape, the description leaves important context unstated: the write nature of the tool, the meaning of the flag fields, and any constraints around when flagging is appropriate. This is a notable gap for a mutation tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining flag_type, value, reason, and comment. The phrase 'incorrect data' loosely maps to the flagging concept but does not clarify what value represents or how to choose among the enum options. Minimal semantic value is added.

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 specific action ('report') and resource ('incorrect data') with a clear purpose ('for credit recovery'), avoiding tautology with the tool name. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the intent is clear enough for selection.

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 provides clear context: use this tool when reporting incorrect data in the credit recovery flow. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough to guide appropriate usage.

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

All Tomba MCP Server 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

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes: email_enrichment and person_enrichment are nearly identical, and every mpp_* tool duplicates a non-MPP tool with only payment method differences. Domain-related tools like domain_search, email_count, and domain_status also blur boundaries, making selection error-prone.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a readable snake_case convention with clear actions like list_, create_, get, and finder/verifier/enrichment suffixes. However, ordering is inconsistent (companies_search vs domain_search, combined_enrichment vs email_finder) and a few vague names like location and autocomplete break the pattern.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is excessive for this server's scope, especially since 10 are MPP variants that simply duplicate existing functionality with a different payment model. The core feature set could be expressed in roughly half the tools without losing capability.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers the core Tomba workflows well: email finding, verification, enrichment, domain/company search, phone lookup, and lead management. Minor gaps exist, such as no update/delete operations for leads and no detailed lead retrieval, but agents can work around these for most prospecting tasks.

Resources