Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AIMFP

AIMFP

by aryanduntley
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_helpers_for_directive

Read-onlyIdempotent

Discover which MCP tools to call when executing a directive's steps. Retrieves the list of helpers for a specified directive in a functional programming project.

Instructions

Get the list of MCP tools available for a directive workflow. Use to discover which tools to call when executing a directive's steps.

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": {
      "directive_name": "<directive_name>"
    },
    "name": "get_helpers_for_directive"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
directive_nameYesName of the directive to get helpers for
include_helpers_dataNoIf true, includes full helper_functions data

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.37.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description does not contradict these and adds context about directive workflows, but it does not disclose behaviors like error handling, pagination, or performance beyond what annotations cover.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the primary action. Every word adds value, and there is no wasted or redundant text.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and moderate complexity, the description provides the core purpose and usage context. It does not detail the return structure, but the tool's simplicity and good annotations make it fairly complete for an AI agent's needs.

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?

The input schema already has full description coverage (100%) for both parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameters beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it retrieves the list of MCP tools for a directive workflow. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_helper_by_name' and 'get_helpers_by_database' by specifying the context of directive steps. The verb 'Get' and resource 'list of MCP tools' are specific.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description guides when to use the tool: 'Use to discover which tools to call when executing a directive's steps.' It implies the context but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or suggest alternatives among siblings.

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