Skip to main content
Glama

describe_reliability_entity

Read-only

Retrieve definitions and current status for business entities like Customer, Revenue, or Funnel to support data reliability and consistency checks.

Instructions

Get the definition and state of a business entity (Customer, Revenue, Funnel). Aliased to describe_semantic_entity.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNo

Implementation Reference

  • The handler logic for describe_semantic_entity (which is the actual implementation for the describe_reliability_entity tool). It retrieves the entity definition from the SemanticSchema via describeSemanticSchema().
    case 'describe_semantic_entity': {
      const { describeSemanticSchema } = require('../../scripts/semantic-layer');
      const schema = describeSemanticSchema();
      const entity = schema.entities[args.type] || schema.metrics[args.type];
      if (!entity) {
        throw new Error(`Unknown semantic entity: ${args.type}`);
      }
      return toTextResult(entity);
    }
  • Registration of the describe_reliability_entity tool in the tool registry.
      name: 'describe_reliability_entity',
      description: 'Get the definition and state of a business entity (Customer, Revenue, Funnel). Aliased to describe_semantic_entity.',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          type: { type: 'string', enum: ['Customer', 'Revenue', 'Funnel'] },
        },
      },
    }),
  • The helper function that provides the semantic schema definition used by the tool handler.
    function describeSemanticSchema() {
      return SemanticSchema;
    }
Behavior3/5

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

The description adds limited behavioral context beyond the annotations. The annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict. However, it does not disclose additional traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'definition and state' entails in terms of output format or data sensitivity. With annotations covering safety, the description adds some value but lacks depth.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and alias. There is no wasted language, making it efficient for an agent to parse and understand quickly.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter, read-only operation) and the presence of annotations (readOnlyHint=true), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It lacks output schema details, does not fully explain parameter usage, and offers no guidance on when to use the tool versus its alias. It meets minimum viability but could be more informative.

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 description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the input schema. It lists the entity types (Customer, Revenue, Funnel), which aligns with the enum in the schema, but with 0% schema description coverage, it does not compensate by explaining the parameter's purpose, format, or constraints. The baseline is 3 due to the single parameter with an enum, but the description does not enhance understanding.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get the definition and state of a business entity (Customer, Revenue, Funnel).' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('business entity'), and enumerates the entity types. However, it does not differentiate from its sibling 'describe_semantic_entity' beyond noting an alias, leaving some ambiguity about their distinct roles.

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 provides minimal guidance: it mentions an alias to 'describe_semantic_entity' but does not explain when to use this tool versus that sibling or other alternatives. There is no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with little direction.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/IgorGanapolsky/mcp-memory-gateway'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server