Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tero-mcp-lite

tero-mcp-lite

by Aphelion-Development
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

query_by_id

Retrieve exact corpus entries by their unique ID, such as RFC-0034, M-1015, DN-87, or issue IDs.

Instructions

Exact lookup by corpus id (RFC-0034, M-1015, DN-87, an issue id).

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": {
      "value": "<value>",
      "token": "<token>"
    },
    "name": "query_by_id"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenYesbearer token (from TERO_TOKENS)
valueYesthe id to match

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only discloses that the lookup is exact, but does not describe the return format, error behavior when no match is found, or any side effects. While it is reasonable to infer a read-only operation, that is not explicitly stated.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the key fact ('Exact lookup by corpus id'), and parenthetical examples add clarity without bloat. Every word contributes value; there is no waste.

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?

For a simple lookup tool with high schema coverage and no output schema, the description conveys the core purpose but omits what the tool returns (e.g., the full record) and the not-found behavior. It is minimally viable but leaves these gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers both parameters (token and value) with basic descriptions. The tool description adds meaning by clarifying that 'value' is a corpus id and provides concrete examples of valid formats, which goes beyond the schema's generic 'the id to match'.

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?

The description clearly states the tool performs an exact lookup by corpus id, with specific examples of id formats (RFC-0034, M-1015, DN-87). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_by_status or query_by_kind, which lookup by other attributes, and from text_search, which implies fuzzy search.

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 wording 'exact lookup by corpus id' strongly implies this tool is for when you have a known exact id to match. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., use text_search for partial matches). The usage is implied rather than explicit.

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