Skip to main content
Glama

Layero

by ru.layero.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin
This connector has been deprecated

Duplicate listing of the same server under an old namespace. The maintained listing is Layero (ru.layero/layero): same endpoint https://mcp.layero.ru/mcp, current description and tools. The landing-page generator described here was removed in MCP 2.0.

Data API базы: методы и доступ

data_api_methods
Read-only

The database's REST and RPC methods with an access level per HTTP method.

The level says who may call the method: closed, visitor (any site
visitor), user (signed-in people), server (the server only). It is read
from the role grants in force in the database itself — exactly as the
gateway sees them.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
databaseNoThe database: name, slug or id. Without it — the organization's only database with the Data API enabled.
organizationNoOrganization slug. Without it — the only one, or the personal one.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tablesNo
databaseYes
functionsNo
next_actionYes
organizationYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / database / description
      Previous value: -"База: имя, слаг или id. Без него — единственная база организации с включённым Data API."New value: +"The database: name, slug or id. Without it — the organization's only database with the Data API enabled."
    • changedInput schema / properties / organization / description
      Previous value: -"Организация (слаг). Без него — единственная или личная."New value: +"Organization slug. Without it — the only one, or the personal one."
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by defining the four access levels (closed, visitor, user, server) and stating that the data is read from role grants 'exactly as the gateway sees them.' This clarifies both the source and the freshness semantics, which goes beyond the annotation.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the resource and scope, the second defines the access levels, and the third explains the source of truth. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 present, the description need not explain return values, and the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description sufficiently explains the access-level semantics and source. It is slightly incomplete only because it does not provide any guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings, but that is a usage-guidance gap rather than a completeness gap for invocation.

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%, so the meaning of database and organization is already fully documented. The description does not add parameter-level details, such as which database is selected by default or how organization disambiguation works. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the resource: the database's REST and RPC methods and their per-HTTP-method access levels. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like data_api_status and data_api_grant by focusing on method-level access. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'lists' or 'returns', so the action is implied rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description explains the meaning of access levels and the source of the data, but it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of data_api_grant for changing access, data_api_probe for testing, or data_api_status for overall API status. The agent is left to infer appropriate usage from the tool name and sibling context.

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

All Layero 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