Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Qingflow MCP (CRUD)

Qingflow MCP (CRUD)

by 853046310
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Qingflow Tool Spec Get

qf_tool_spec_get
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve tool parameter requirements, limits, aliases, and minimal examples to ground agent prompts for MCP tools.

Instructions

Return MCP tool parameter requirements, limits, aliases and minimal examples for agent prompt grounding.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "qf_tool_spec_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tool_nameNo
include_allNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes
dataYes
metaYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds specific return content (requirements, limits, aliases, examples) which complements annotations and clarifies what the tool does beyond a simple read.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded and to the point. However, it omits parameter details which could be included without much bloat.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the output schema exists and annotations are present, the description is partially complete. However, with zero schema description coverage and no explanation of parameters, it does not fully compensate for the missing detail.

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%, and the description does not explain the two parameters (tool_name, include_all). While parameter names are somewhat intuitive, the description fails to add meaning or constraints beyond the schema.

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?

Description explicitly states the tool returns 'MCP tool parameter requirements, limits, aliases and minimal examples', which is a specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that handle forms, queries, or records.

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?

Description implies usage context (agent prompt grounding) but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools