anvil_get_weld_dataFetch a weldData record — a single submission to a weld (workflow) — by eid: completion state, test flag, and creation time. GraphQL query: weldData.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| eid | Yes | The weldData (workflow submission) eid. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying that it is a GraphQL query and listing the returned fields (completion state, test flag, creation time). It does not disclose error handling or auth needs but transparently describes the operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loading the key information. Every word serves a purpose, including the technical note about GraphQL query. No redundant or vague text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple fetch tool with one parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description provides sufficient context. It explains what is returned and the mechanism (GraphQL query). Complete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for 'eid'. The description restates fetching by eid but adds no additional semantics such as format or example. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Fetch', the resource 'weldData record', and specifies it is 'a single submission to a weld (workflow)'. It lists the fields returned: completion state, test flag, and creation time. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'anvil_get_weld' which likely fetches the workflow itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions fetching by eid but lacks explicit comparison with sibling tools like 'anvil_get_weld' or context for when this tool should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct function: user info, PDF creation/filling, e-signature management, and workflow queries. No two tools have overlapping purposes; even the two PDF tools (fill_pdf vs generate_pdf) are clearly separated by input type.
All tools use the 'anvil_' prefix followed by verb_noun in snake_case (e.g., create_etch_packet, get_cast). The pattern is perfectly consistent across all 10 tools.
10 tools cover the major Anvil capabilities (PDF, e-sign, organization, workflows) without unnecessary redundancy. The count is well-scoped for the server's purpose.
The set lacks list/update/delete operations for several resources (e.g., no list_casts, no update_etch_packet). While key create and get operations are present, agents may need to work around missing CRUD coverage.