Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
INFATON MCP35

INFATON MCP35

Official
by infaton
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

get_object_by_ref

Fetch complete object data by type and UUID: all attributes, tabular sections, posted and deletion flags.

Instructions

Получить полные данные объекта по его типу и UUID: все реквизиты, табличные части, проведён ли, пометка удаления.

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": "get_object_by_ref"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
guidYesUUID объекта
full_nameYesТип объекта, например: Справочник.Номенклатура, Документ.РеализацияТоваровУслуг

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses what data is returned but lacks details on performance, error handling, auth requirements, or side effects. As a read operation, it does not mention its read-only nature or any scope limitations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and result. Every word conveys necessary information without redundancy.

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 straightforward retrieval tool, the description is fairly complete: it specifies the input parameters and the output contents. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no mention of output format or error cases), but it is sufficient for an agent to understand core functionality.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, thus baseline 3 is appropriate. The description confirms the parameters' roles (type and UUID) but adds no new semantic details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 retrieves full data of an object by type and UUID, listing included fields (requisites, tabular parts, posted status, deletion mark). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_list or get_object_attributes.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage when full object data is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_object_attributes for partial data). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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