Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
INFATON MCP35

INFATON MCP35

Official
by infaton
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

check_references

Find all database references to an object before deletion. Shows usage locations to prevent errors.

Instructions

Найти все ссылки на объект в базе данных. Показывает где используется данный объект. Необходимо перед удалением.

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": {
      "full_name": "<full_name>",
      "guid": "<guid>"
    },
    "name": "check_references"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
guidYesUUID объекта
full_nameYesТип объекта, например: Справочник.Номенклатура

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool finds all references but does not describe the output format (e.g., list of object names, count) or any potential performance impacts. Adequate but not detailed.

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?

The description is very concise, consisting of three short sentences that are front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (find references with two required params) and the lack of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It could be improved by specifying the return format, but it provides enough for an AI to understand the purpose.

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?

Both parameters (full_name, guid) are fully described in the input schema with coverage of 100%. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, achieving the baseline score.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'find all references to an object in the database' and 'shows where this object is used'. It also indicates the tool is necessary before deletion, distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_object.

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?

The description explicitly says 'necessary before deletion', which tells when to use it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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