Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AIMFP

AIMFP

by aryanduntley
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_from_settings_where

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve filtered data from a preferences database table by providing a table name and JSON conditions for AND logic matching.

Instructions

Flexible filtering with structured JSON conditions

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>",
      "conditions": "<conditions>"
    },
    "name": "get_from_settings_where"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tableYesTable name in user_preferences.db
conditionsYesField-value pairs (AND logic)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.37.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral context, but the annotations cover the main safety profile adequately.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Very short single phrase, which is concise but could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming verbose. It front-loads 'flexible filtering' appropriately.

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?

No output schema and the description does not explain what is returned. Given the complexity of filtering, the absence of return value specification is a significant gap.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description's 'structured JSON conditions' adds minimal nuance beyond the schema's 'Field-value pairs (AND logic)'.

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 name 'get_from_settings_where' and description 'Flexible filtering with structured JSON conditions' clearly indicate the tool retrieves settings records with filtering. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_from_settings' which likely returns all settings.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'get_from_settings'. No mention of when not to use it or prerequisites.

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