Skip to main content
Glama

query_project_state

Read-onlyIdempotent

Query project data using SQL-like filters, joins, and pagination to retrieve tasks, milestones, files, and more without writing raw SQL.

Instructions

Flexible SQL-like query interface for complex project queries. Provides powerful filtering and joining capabilities without writing raw SQL.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entityYesPrimary table to query: 'tasks', 'subtasks', 'sidequests', 'milestones', 'files', 'functions', 'flows', 'themes', etc.
filtersNoWHERE-like conditions with operators: {field: value} or {field: {op: 'gt', value: 5}}
joinsNoRelations to include via LEFT JOIN: ['milestones', 'files']
sortNoORDER BY clause: 'field ASC' or 'field DESC'
limitNoMaximum results (pagination)
offsetNoSkip first N results (pagination)
Behavior4/5

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 provides 'powerful filtering and joining capabilities without writing raw SQL', giving context about the abstraction level and safety.

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?

Two sentences, both concise and front-loaded. Every word adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity (6 params, nested objects) and lack of output schema, the description adequately characterizes the tool's role among many sibling tools. It could mention output format but is generally complete.

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 detailed descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score 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 'SQL-like query interface for complex project queries', specifying verb (query) and resource (project state). It avoids tautology and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_project and query_core by emphasizing 'project' and 'complex queries'.

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 indicates it is for complex queries on project data, implying it should be used when simple getters are insufficient. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/aryanduntley/aimfp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server