Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

AsOf

by is.asof
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Coverage of an entity

coverage
Read-onlyIdempotent

What the record covers for an entity, so an empty answer can be told apart: not covered (no source reads it), unknown (covered, nothing checked yet) or covered with nothing on that date. sources: the official feeds that record posts on it or speak for it, its SEC filing (CIK, ticker), Hugging Face authors, Wikidata item and the status dashboard. holds: its public claims by predicate (claims, open, kind: fact, event, list or identifier). freshness: per ingest, when it last added a claim here (last_added), when one was last checked against its source (last_checked) and when reverify.py last confirmed one against Wikidata (last_verified). gaps: what the record does not cover, e.g. 'financials: none; files with the SEC as alphabet'. group: the other records of its company group and how each joined.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "entity": "<entity>"
    },
    "name": "coverage"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entityYesEntity slug, e.g. google

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so safety is covered; the description adds substantive behavioral context instead of repeating it. It discloses the semantic payload (sources, holds, freshness, gaps, group) including non-obvious details like reverify.py confirming against Wikidata and gaps phrasing. It does not describe response shape or size limits, but with no output schema this is a strong disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The first sentence is well front-loaded and earns its place. The remainder is a comma-spliced run-on enumerating return fields; the 'sources:/holds:/freshness:/gaps:' labels help scanning but the prose is denser than needed.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so field by field, covering the three statuses, source provenance, claims, freshness timestamps and known gaps. That is close to complete for a one-parameter read tool.

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?

The single parameter has 100% schema coverage with an inline example ("google"), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only that it is an entity, without clarifying slug format, case sensitivity, or what happens with an unknown slug.

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?

States the resource clearly: "What the record covers for an entity", plus the specific design intent ("so an empty answer can be told apart") with the three distinguishing outcomes enumerated. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource, and it never names a sibling to contrast with, so an agent must infer how it differs from entity_state or claim.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The purpose clause implies the trigger (an empty or ambiguous answer) and lists three mutually exclusive interpretations, which is real guidance. However it never states explicitly when to call this versus entity_state, changes_since or timeline, and gives no exclusion or prerequisite.

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

All AsOf toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources