huly-mcp-selfhost

describe_class

Read-only

Retrieves attributes and type definitions for a specified Huly class, helping you inspect its schema before querying or creating records.

Instructions

Attributes and types of a class

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": {
      "className": "<className>"
    },
    "name": "describe_class"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`className`	Yes	e.g. recruit:class:Vacancy
`workspace`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.5.1Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already supply readOnlyHint=true and the title, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond that—no indication of what 'attributes and types' means concretely, whether the result is cached, or what happens for an unknown class. With the lower bar set by annotations this still leaves the agent with an empty behavioral picture.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is short and wastes no words, but it is a bare fragment rather than a front-loaded sentence, so the brevity reflects under-specification more than discipline. A single well-formed sentence would fit the same budget.

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

Completeness2/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description should explain the shape of the returned attributes/types—it does not. With two parameters, one undocumented, and no statement of return semantics, the definition is too thin for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 coverage is only 50%: className has an example ("recruit:class:Vacancy") but workspace has no description at all, and the description does not explain either parameter or the identifier namespace convention beyond what the schema already shows. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Attributes and types of a class" is a noun fragment with no verb and no statement of scope; it mostly restates the tool name describe_class. It hints at the content (class metadata) but an agent cannot tell from this whether the tool returns a schema definition, a validation result, or a rendered document.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus introspection-adjacent siblings such as check_setup or get_activity, and no preconditions stated. The read-only nature must be inferred entirely from annotations.

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

Deploy Server