Query FileMaker database records with advanced filtering, sorting, and pagination. Specify database, layout, and query criteria to retrieve targeted data.
Query records with advanced filtering and sorting
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | Sort array | |
| limit | No | Max records to return | |
| query | No | Find requests array | |
| layout | Yes | Layout name | |
| offset | No | Records to skip | |
| database | Yes | Database identifier |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing: not that it is a read-only operation, not whether results are paginated (despite limit/offset params), not caps or default page sizes. For an unannotated 6-parameter query tool this is a serious gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single efficient sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is economical, though arguably over-terse given the tool's filtering complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain read-only nature, pagination expectations, and the filter/sort semantics. It supplies none of these, leaving the agent to reconstruct behavior from the schema alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's mention of filtering and sorting loosely maps to the query and sort params but adds no syntax, defaults, or semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a clear verb+resource ('Query records') with the added scope of filtering and sorting. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the write-oriented siblings (fm_create_record, fm_update_record, fm_delete_record), though it never names them explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no statement of what 'advanced filtering' means in practice. An agent must infer that this is the general read path for records without any explicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.