Skip to main content
Glama
cubicecho

MCP Actual

by cubicecho
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Resolve a name to an id

resolve_name_to_id
Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up the ID of an account, category, payee, or schedule by its exact name. Returns null if not found, so you can check existence before creating.

Instructions

Look up the id of an account, category, payee, or schedule by its exact name. Returns { id: null } when nothing matches — that is a normal answer, not an error, so use it to check whether something exists before creating it. Most other tools take ids, so this saves listing everything just to find one.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe exact name to match.
typeYesWhich kind of entity to look up.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/safe, but the description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavior: a miss returns `{ id: null }` rather than an error. That return semantics disclosure is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry and directly prevents an agent from treating a null result as a failure.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the null-result caveat, then the rationale. Every sentence earns its place and none repeats structured data unnecessarily.

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

Completeness5/5

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

No output schema exists, yet the description supplies the essential return contract (id or null) and the error-vs-normal distinction. With only two fully documented params and full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 `name` (exact name to match) and `type` (enum of entity kinds) fully documented in the schema itself. The description's mention of 'exact name' and the entity list only restates the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (look up) and resource (the id of an account, category, payee, or schedule), enumerating the entity kinds the `type` enum accepts. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_accounts or list_payees, which enumerate rather than resolve a single name.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly frames the when: use it to check whether something exists before creating it, and notes the alternative it replaces — listing everything just to find one id. The condition selecting this tool over the list_* siblings is stated, not inferred.

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