Skip to main content
Glama
Solitario119

IC-CAP MCP Server

by Solitario119
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

tablevar_exists

Verify if a table field exists before retrieving or setting its value to prevent errors, with disambiguation for conflicting path names.

Instructions

Check if a table field exists. Returns boolean. Use before tablevar_get/set to avoid errors on non-existent fields. On name-conflict paths (Plot sharing its name with a Transform/Input/Output) the untyped probe reflects the non-Plot side; pass object_type='Plot' to probe the Plot side through an automatic rename-aside transaction (annotated conflict=true, resolved_as='Plot').

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
object_typeNoDisambiguation hint for name conflicts. Unset probes the untyped path (non-Plot object on conflict paths); 'Plot' probes the Plot side through an automatic rename-aside transaction when a conflict exists.
tablevar_pathYesFull path including field name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / object_type
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Disambiguation hint for name conflicts. Unset probes the untyped path (non-Plot object on conflict paths); 'Plot' probes the Plot side through an automatic rename-aside transaction when a conflict exists.",
+  "enum": [
+    "Transform",
+    "Plot"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.2.2

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It covers the boolean return, the untyped probe behavior on name-conflict paths, and the automatic rename-aside transaction for the 'Plot' side. It even exposes the conflict result metadata ('conflict=true, resolved_as='Plot''), which is valuable nuance an agent would not otherwise know.

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 compact yet information-dense. Every sentence earns its place: purpose and return type first, usage guidance second, then the nuanced conflict-path behavior. Despite the complexity of the rename-aside transaction, the text stays readable and front-loads the most important information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It states the return type, gives a clear precondition for use, and fully explains the one genuinely tricky edge case (name conflicts between Plot and Transform/Input/Output). An agent has enough information to call this tool correctly without further investigation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's object_type explanation largely mirrors the schema's own description of the disambiguation behavior. The tablevar_path parameter is already described as 'Full path including field name,' and the description adds no further format or path-construction details.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check if a table field exists. Returns boolean.' This clearly distinguishes it from tablevar_get/tablevar_set and from generic object existence checks like object_exist. It states the exact scope of the operation and its return type, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use before tablevar_get/set to avoid errors on non-existent fields.' This gives clear contextual guidance. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative existence-check tools, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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