Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AIMFP

AIMFP

by aryanduntley
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

add_project_entry

Insert a new record into a project database table by specifying the table name and field-value pairs.

Instructions

Add new entry to project database

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": {
      "table": "<table>",
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "add_project_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tableYesTable name
dataYesField-value pairs

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.37.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutable operation (readOnlyHint=false), but the description adds no further behavioral context such as side effects, permissions, or idempotency. The description does not contradict 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 brief and to the point, containing one sentence with no wasted words. It could be expanded but is not overly verbose.

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?

Despite full schema coverage, the tool has a nested 'data' object parameter and no output schema. The description does not clarify acceptable table names or the structure of field-value pairs, leaving gaps for a complex mutation tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description 'project database' implies the 'table' parameter refers to project tables, but it adds no specific meaning beyond the schema.

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?

The description 'Add new entry to project database' clearly indicates what the tool does with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from more specific siblings like 'add_settings_entry' or 'add_user_custom_entry'.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'add_item' and 'add_note', the description lacks context for selection.

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