Skip to main content
Glama
gura105

Operational Ontology

by gura105
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

aggregate_note

Count selected Note objects and optionally sum a numeric property, either as one whole-set total or grouped by a field. Returns per-set keys and metrics for further filtering.

Instructions

Count the selected Note objects and optionally sum a numeric property. Omit group_by for one whole-set total (key: null, zero metrics for an empty set), or group by a property. Returns set and values; each row has a key, member pks and numeric metrics. Filter rows in client-side code and use their pks to continue exploring.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pksYes
group_byNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.2
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "pks",
-  "group_by"
-]New value: +[
+  "pks"
+]
  2. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.5.1
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • removedInput schema / properties / filter
      Removed value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "author": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "id": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "text": {
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / pks
      Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "group_by"
-]New value: +[
+  "pks",
+  "group_by"
+]
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the schema: whole-set results use key null, empty sets produce zero metrics, and each row contains a key, member pks, and numeric metrics. It remains slightly vague about which numeric property is summed, but the behavior described is adequate for an aggregate operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences cover the core action, grouping modes, empty-set behavior, and output shape without padding. The sentence 'Returns set and values...' is slightly imprecise, but the overall structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

For a two-parameter aggregation tool, it covers the input selection, grouping options, empty-set result, row structure, and follow-up workflow using returned pks. Missing details are the exact numeric property being summed and explicit read-only confirmation, but no output schema or annotations are present to fill those gaps.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps pks to 'selected Note objects', explains group_by as grouping by a property, and explains omission behavior. It does not enumerate the enum values, but the schema already exposes them via the enum list.

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 action ('Count... optionally sum') on a specific resource type ('Note objects'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling aggregate_* tools for other resources. The grouping and return behavior reinforce that this is an aggregation tool rather than a simple get/search.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance: omit group_by for a whole-set total or use group_by to break results into rows, and suggests filtering rows client-side. It does not explicitly contrast the tool with sibling note tools, but the within-tool usage context is 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