Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Workato Dev MCP

Workato Dev MCP

by gmunro-lyft
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

query_lookup_table

Retrieve rows from a lookup table by ID to inspect captured query logs and debug data.

Instructions

Read rows from a lookup table by id (e.g. to inspect captured query logs).

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_id": "<table_id>"
    },
    "name": "query_lookup_table"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
table_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'Read rows' but does not clarify that 'id' refers to table_id, nor does it disclose behavior around the 'limit' parameter, return format, or error handling. The phrase 'by id' is ambiguous.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb 'Read'. It efficiently conveys the core action.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given there is no output schema or annotations, the description should explain return values and parameter effects, but it only partially covers the purpose. The missing explanation of 'limit' and the ambiguous 'by id' leave gaps in completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only hints at 'id' without explicitly naming table_id. The 'limit' parameter is completely omitted, leaving its purpose and usage unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb 'Read' with a clear resource 'lookup table' and the parameter 'id', distinguishing it from siblings like list_lookup_tables (lists tables) and add_lookup_table_row (adds rows).

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?

Provides a clear example use case ('to inspect captured query logs') that implies when to use the tool, but does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it. The context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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