Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

DigitalK2

by se.digitalk2
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Skriv i formulärfält i steg 1

fill_input
DestructiveIdempotent

Skriver i ett formulärfält i steg 1, som när användaren skriver.

Använd i steg 1 när bolaget fylls i utan SIE-fil (manuell inmatning): sök bolag på namn eller organisationsnummer, och ange räkenskapsårets datum. Vilka fält som finns står i snapshot.inputs (get_state). För steg 2 till 6, använd update_fields. Hämta sedan företagsuppgifterna med fetch_company_details.

Returnerar filled, value och snapshot efteråt.

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": {
      "draft_id": "<draft_id>",
      "label": "<label>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "fill_input"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
labelYesFältets etikett exakt som i snapshot.inputs[].label (steg 1), t.ex. 'Räkenskapsår från'.
valueYesVärdet som skrivs i fältet, som användaren skulle skriva det. Organisationsnummer som NNNNNN-NNNN (t.ex. 559515-1589), datum som ÅÅÅÅ-MM-DD.
draft_idYesUtkastets id (draft_id), t.ex. från list_drafts. Utkastet måste tillhöra det anslutna kontot.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered by structured data. The description adds the typing analogy and the return payload ('filled, value och snapshot'), but never discloses that this destructive write may overwrite an existing field value or what happens when the label is not present. With annotations carrying most of the load, this is adequate but has a clear gap.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the core action, then usage and follow-up, so the important routing information comes first. Every sentence carries weight, though the two-line layout could be tightened slightly.

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 usefully names the return fields (filled, value, snapshot) and covers the workflow context and where valid labels come from. Only the overwrite/error behavior on a destructive write is left unspecified.

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 schema already documents label, value, and draft_id with exact formats (NNNNNN-NNNN, ÅÅÅÅ-MM-DD). The description's only addition is pointing at snapshot.inputs via get_state as the source of valid labels, which is a modest supplement rather than new semantic detail; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Skriver i ett formulärfält i steg 1') scoped to step 1, and explicitly contrasts it with the sibling used for later steps ('För steg 2 till 6, använd update_fields'). An agent can distinguish it from update_fields without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to use it (step 1, manual entry when the company is filled in without a SIE file), the alternative for other steps (update_fields), and the follow-up action (fetch_company_details). Both the selection condition and the exclusions are spelled out.

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

All DigitalK2 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