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

tero-mcp-lite

by Aphelion-Development
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

query_by_status

Retrieves all rows matching a specified status (e.g., Accepted, todo, done) from the Tero corpus. Returns cited results and refuses when no matches exist, avoiding silent empty responses.

Instructions

All rows with a given status (Accepted, todo, done, …).

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_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenYesbearer token (from TERO_TOKENS)
valueYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether matches are exact, case-sensitive, paginated, or how results are ordered. The description is too sparse to provide meaningful transparency.

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?

One sentence with relevant examples, no filler. Although it is a sentence fragment, it communicates the essential functionality efficiently.

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 query tool, the description gives a minimal overview but omits details such as output format or any limitations. With no output schema and no annotations, more context (e.g., whether all fields are returned or if there is pagination) would be valuable. Still, the tool's simplicity keeps this from being severely inadequate.

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 schema describes 'token' but not 'value'. The description partially compensates by indicating 'value' contains a status (e.g., Accepted, todo, done), giving the parameter context. However, it doesn't specify constraints like case sensitivity or allowed formats, and the 50% schema coverage leaves room for more.

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 tool as returning rows filtered by a status field, with examples of status values. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like query_by_id and query_by_kind, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves'.

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 intended usage is implied by the name and description ('filter by status'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like text_search or cross_ref. No exclusionary conditions are mentioned.

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