Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AIMFP

AIMFP

by aryanduntley
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_helper_by_name

Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up details of a specific helper function by name to manage functional programming tasks.

Instructions

Get specific helper function details (high-frequency)

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": {
      "helper_name": "<helper_name>"
    },
    "name": "get_helper_by_name"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
helper_nameYesHelper name to look up

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.37.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds 'high-frequency', hinting at usage pattern but no specific behaviors (e.g., rate limits, side effects). With annotations doing heavy lifting, the description provides minimal extra transparency.

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 a single sentence of four words, containing no fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, achieving maximum conciseness with zero waste.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple one-parameter lookup tool with comprehensive annotations (read-only, idempotent) and no output schema, the brief description is largely adequate. However, it does not specify what 'details' are returned (e.g., structure, fields), which slightly reduces completeness.

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% with a clear parameter description 'Helper name to look up'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it simply restates the purpose. Baseline 3 applies as the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 'Get specific helper function details (high-frequency)' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating a lookup by name. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_helpers_are_sub or get_all_helpers, though the 'by name' specificity is implied.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_helper_by_name vs get_all_helpers. The description lacks context for usage exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons, leaving the agent without decision support.

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