Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AIMFP

AIMFP

by aryanduntley
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

add_user_custom_entry

Add a new entry to a specified table in the user_directives database and obtain the inserted record with its ID.

Instructions

Add entry to user_directives.db table. Returns inserted record with ID.

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_user_custom_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tableYesTable name in user_directives.db
dataYesField-value pairs to insert

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.37.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Discloses that it adds an entry and returns the inserted record, which aligns with readOnlyHint=false. However, no mention of side effects, error scenarios (e.g., duplicate key, constraints), or behavior if table is missing. Annotations provide no additional context, so description carries the burden but falls short of full transparency.

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?

Two short statements: action and return. No redundant words. Front-loaded with the verb. Could be slightly more structured but highly concise.

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?

Covers basic purpose and return value, but lacks broader context. Given the large set of sibling tools, the description does not explain what 'user_directives.db' is or how this tool relates to others (e.g., get_from_user_custom, update_user_custom_entry). Adequate for isolated use but incomplete for an agent navigating many similar tools.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add new information about parameters; it merely echoes the schema. No extra semantics or usage tips are provided.

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?

Description clearly states action (add entry), target (user_directives.db table), and return value (inserted record with ID). However, it does not differentiate from many other 'add_*' sibling tools, leaving ambiguity about the specific type of 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 usage guidance provided. Does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like update_user_custom_entry or add_user_directive_note. Lacks any context about prerequisites or conditions.

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