Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
codebugs

codebugs

by faxik
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

claims_who_holds

Identify the current holder of any entity by providing its ID. Resolve ownership disputes and coordination issues with a quick lookup of who holds this entity.

Instructions

Who currently holds this entity, if anyone.

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": {
      "entity_id": "<entity_id>"
    },
    "name": "claims_who_holds"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entity_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.2

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description adds 'currently' and 'if anyone', indicating the result is a point-in-time holder that may be absent. With no annotations, it carries the behavioral burden, but it stops short of explaining what 'holds' means or what state changes (if any) occur; this is likely a read-only lookup, but that is left implicit.

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?

One short sentence, no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded. Nothing could be trimmed without removing meaning.

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 tool is simple (one required parameter) and an output schema exists, so a terse description is justifiable. The main gap is the lack of usage/sibling guidance, but enough is present to call it once an entity_id is at hand.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has no property descriptions, so the description is the only semantic source; it merely maps 'this entity' to entity_id and says nothing about the ID format, domain meaning, or how absence is represented. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds almost no parameter-level value.

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 phrase 'Who currently holds this entity' names a specific lookup action and resource, and the 'if anyone' qualifier makes the nullable outcome clear. However, it does not differentiate this from the sibling claims_held_by, which appears to describe the same query.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No statement of when to call this vs claims_held_by, claims_list, or claims_claim. The only contextual cue is the query-like wording, which leaves an agent to infer it is for checking current holders.

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