Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AIMFP

AIMFP

by aryanduntley
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

user_directives_allowed_check_constraints

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve allowed values from CHECK constraints on enum fields in user_directives.db. Provide table and field names to get the list of permissible values.

Instructions

Returns list of allowed values for CHECK constraint enum fields in user_directives.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": "user_directives_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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral detail by mentioning that it 'parses schema to extract CHECK(field IN (...)) constraints,' providing transparency into how the tool works without contradicting annotations.

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, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value, and there is no 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?

The description adequately explains the purpose and behavior. However, it lacks details about the return format (e.g., list of strings) and potential errors. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is a minor 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes both parameters clearly. The description does not add further semantics beyond what the schema provides, so 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 the verb ('returns') and the specific resource ('allowed values for CHECK constraint enum fields') with a specific database scope ('user_directives.db'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'core_allowed_check_constraints' and 'project_allowed_check_constraints' by specifying the database.

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 implies the tool should be used for CHECK constraints in user_directives.db, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. However, the context of sibling tools makes the usage clear.

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