Skip to main content
Glama

clio_get_custom_action

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a Clio custom action for your project by supplying project and connector account references. Uses a read effect to return the action details securely.

Instructions

Clio connector operation get_custom_action (platform tool clio.get_custom_action).

Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority.

Args: arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation. project_id: Authenticated Project UUID. project_ref: Exact project correlation reference. connector_account_ref: Project-bound connector account alias. idempotency_key: Stable business-action identity. effect: Required and must be read; Spring verifies it. approval_ref: Approved platform task UUID when resuming a write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
effectYes
argumentsNo{}
project_idNo
project_refNo
approval_refNo
idempotency_keyNo
connector_account_refNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed7 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / approval_ref
      Added value: +{
      +  "anyOf": [
      +    {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    {
      +      "type": "null"
      +    }
      +  ],
      +  "default": null,
      +  "title": "Approval Ref"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / connector_account_ref
      Added value: +{
      +  "anyOf": [
      +    {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    {
      +      "type": "null"
      +    }
      +  ],
      +  "default": null,
      +  "title": "Connector Account Ref"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / effect
      Added value: +{
      +  "const": "read",
      +  "title": "Effect",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key
      Added value: +{
      +  "anyOf": [
      +    {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    {
      +      "type": "null"
      +    }
      +  ],
      +  "default": null,
      +  "title": "Idempotency Key"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_id
      Added value: +{
      +  "anyOf": [
      +    {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    {
      +      "type": "null"
      +    }
      +  ],
      +  "default": null,
      +  "title": "Project Id"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_ref
      Added value: +{
      +  "anyOf": [
      +    {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    {
      +      "type": "null"
      +    }
      +  ],
      +  "default": null,
      +  "title": "Project Ref"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
      +  "effect"
      +]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already disclose that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a routing/authority constraint and notes that Spring verifies the effect field. However, the approval_ref bullet ('when resuming a write') is confusing for a read-only operation and could mislead an agent, even though it does not directly contradict the readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

The description is compact and scannable, front-loading the governance/routing constraint and then listing parameters in a clear format. The first sentence is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but overall there is no wasted prose or excessive length.

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?

The output schema and annotations cover return shape and safety, and all parameters are named. However, the description does not explain what a custom action is, how to identify the target resource (presumably inside the arguments JSON), or when to choose this over the many Clio-related siblings. A first-time agent would struggle to construct a correct invocation, especially the `arguments` payload.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the bullet list carries the full semantic burden. It gives meaningful roles to all seven parameters, including project_ref, connector_account_ref, and idempotency_key. The `arguments` parameter remains under-specified as just a 'JSON string of arguments' with no example or expected keys, which is a notable gap for invocation.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description identifies this as a 'get' operation on a Clio custom action and requires effect='read', so the intended purpose is partially clear. However, it never explicitly states what a custom action is, what the tool returns, or how a single get differs from clio_list_custom_actions. It relies heavily on the tool name and the read-only effect rather than explaining the operation.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as clio_list_custom_actions, clio_api_request, or other clio_get_* tools. The only contextual statement is about routing through governed connector authority, which is a constraint rather than a usage policy. No when/when-not/alternative guidance is provided.

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