Skip to main content
Glama
SmartSuiteFoundry

SmartSuite MCP Server

by SmartSuiteFoundry
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

smartsuite_match_applications

Read-only

Matches tables within a confirmed solution pair by exact name, accepts confirmation or manual overrides, and saves the source-to-production table ID map for migration.

Instructions

Step 2 of solution migration: for one confirmed solution pair, match its tables (applications) by exact name (table ids AND slugs both regenerate across workspaces, so name is the only handle). Same confirm/overrides flow as match_solutions. Persists the lower→prod table-id map into the project.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNoConfirm unambiguous table matches. Default false.
projectYesMigration project name.
solutionYesName of a confirmed solution pair (from match_solutions).
overridesNoManual table resolutions: [{sourceId, prodId}].

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.9.8

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description claims to 'persists the lower→prod table-id map into the project', indicating a write operation. However, annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, a direct contradiction. Description contradicts annotations.

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 concise in two sentences, front-loading its purpose. However, it could better structure the flow description and explicitly mention prerequisites.

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?

The description adequately places this tool in a multi-step migration process and explains why name matching is necessary. However, the contradiction with annotations undermines trust, and no output schema or return value details are provided.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter details beyond the schema, merely referencing the 'confirm/overrides flow'. It does not explain parameter formats or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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's role as 'Step 2 of solution migration', matching tables (applications) by exact name. It distinguishes from the sibling 'match_solutions' by specifying it operates on the table level within a confirmed solution pair.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this tool is used after match_solutions, stating 'for one confirmed solution pair'. It references the 'same confirm/overrides flow as match_solutions', providing context but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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