Skip to main content
Glama
WYRE-AI

superops-mcp

by WYRE-AI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

superops_clients_search

Search for clients by name or email domain to find the matching account, even from a partial domain. Use it to locate client records in SuperOps PSA/RMM.

Instructions

Search for clients by name or email domain. A client matches if the term appears in either, so searching a domain fragment finds the account that owns it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number, 1-based (default: 1, max: 2147483647)
queryYesSubstring to match against the client name or any of its email domains
pageSizeNoResults per page (default: 50, max: 100)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv2.0.2
    • removedInput schema / properties / max
      Removed value: -{
-  "default": 20,
-  "description": "Maximum number of results (default: 20)",
-  "type": "number"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / page
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 1,
+  "description": "Page number, 1-based (default: 1, max: 2147483647)",
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / pageSize
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 50,
+  "description": "Results per page (default: 50, max: 100)",
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / query / description
      Previous value: -"Search term to find clients by name or email domain"New value: +"Substring to match against the client name or any of its email domains"
  2. Addedv1.6.3
  3. Removedv1.6.0
  4. First observedv1.2.5

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains the matching rule ('term appears in either' name or email domain) and the domain-fragment use case, but does not state read-only safety, permissions, or result/pagination behavior. That is only partial disclosure.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler, and the matching rule is front-loaded. The size is appropriate for a simple search tool.

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?

For a 3-parameter search tool with complete schema descriptions, the description covers query semantics well. However, with no output schema, it omits return shape and pagination behavior, leaving the agent to infer the response structure.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds concrete meaning beyond the schema by explaining that a domain fragment will match the account that owns it, which clarifies the query parameter's practical behavior.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('clients') plus the searchable fields (name, email domain). It does not name sibling superops_clients_list, so sibling differentiation is left to inference, but the matching semantics distinguish it from a plain list.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and the alternative superops_clients_list is not mentioned. The search-by-name/domain phrasing implies usage, but routing between this and list/get siblings is left to the agent.

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