Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AIMFP

AIMFP

by aryanduntley
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

project_allowed_check_constraints

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve allowed values for CHECK constraint enum fields in project.db by specifying a table and field name. Parses schema to extract CHECK(field IN (...)) constraints.

Instructions

Returns list of allowed values for CHECK constraint enum fields in project.db. Parses schema to extract CHECK(field IN (...)) constraints.

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>",
      "field": "<field>"
    },
    "name": "project_allowed_check_constraints"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tableYesTable name to check for CHECK constraints
fieldYesField name to get allowed values for

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.37.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
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 that it 'parses schema' but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and method.

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 read-only tool with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it returns and how it works. It could be more explicit about the database scope but is sufficient.

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 both table and field parameters described. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool returns allowed values for CHECK constraint enum fields in project.db. It specifies the verb 'Returns' and the resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from similar sibling tools like core_allowed_check_constraints, though mentioning project.db helps.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for querying CHECK constraints but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use or comparison to sibling tools is given.

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