Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
INFATON MCP35

INFATON MCP35

Official
by infaton
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

get_object_tabular_sections

Extract tabular sections and their fields from documents and directories to analyze string content. Requires the full object name.

Instructions

Получить табличные части объекта и их реквизиты. Используй для анализа строковых данных документов и справочников.

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_object_tabular_sections"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
full_nameYesПолное имя объекта, например: Документ.ПоступлениеТоваровУслуг

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, and the description only states 'get tabular sections'. It does not disclose behavior such as side effects, idempotence, or permissions, leaving significant gaps.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and a usage hint. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Without an output schema, the description should explain what 'tabular sections' include (e.g., their details). It is functional but could be more explicit about return structure.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter 'full_name' is well-described in the schema. The description adds no further meaning beyond confirming the object type, so baseline score applies.

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 specifies the verb 'get' and resource 'tabular sections of an object', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'update_tabular_section' 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 Guidelines4/5

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

The description includes 'Use for analyzing string data of documents and directories', giving a clear usage context without explicit exclusion of alternatives.

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