Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
INFATON MCP35

INFATON MCP35

Official
by infaton
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

search_metadata

Search metadata objects by substring in name or synonym when the exact name is unknown. Optionally filter by type.

Instructions

Поиск объектов метаданных по подстроке в имени или синониме. Используй когда не знаешь точное имя объекта.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_metadata"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesСтрока поиска по имени или синониму объекта метаданных
type_filterNoФильтр по типу: Справочник, Документ, Регистр, Перечисление, ПВХ, ПланСчетов (необязательно)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
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 does not disclose return format, pagination, case sensitivity, or behavior beyond substring matching. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or output structure.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, the second gives usage guidance. Ideal front-loading.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of object references, names, etc.). It does not cover this, leaving the agent uncertain about the result format. Also lacks details on filtering scope or limits.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, but the description adds valuable nuance: search includes synonyms. This extra information is not present in the schema descriptions, thus enhancing parameter understanding beyond the baseline.

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 that the tool searches metadata objects by substring in name or synonym, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_metadata_tree and find_by_name by emphasizing substring matching.

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 advises using this tool when the exact object name is unknown, providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools like find_by_name or get_object_metadata for exact matches.

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