Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
INFATON MCP35

INFATON MCP35

Official
by infaton
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

set_attribute

Change a single attribute of an object in 1C:Enterprise. Useful for bulk point edits and quick corrections.

Instructions

Быстро изменить один реквизит объекта. Удобно для массовых точечных правок.

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>",
      "attribute_name": "<attribute_name>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "set_attribute"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
guidYesUUID объекта
valueYesНовое значение
full_nameYesТип объекта
attribute_nameYesИмя реквизита

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It only claims 'quickly' and 'mass edits' with no details on side effects, error handling, idempotency, or security. The behavioral profile is inadequately specified for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that front-load the purpose. Every word serves a function, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the basics but lacks completeness for deciding between similar siblings. Missing information on permissions, validation, and return behavior leaves gaps for agent decision-making.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear parameter explanations. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema (e.g., constraints on attribute validity or value format). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action: 'quickly change one attribute of an object.' It implies a focused use but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_object' that may also modify attributes. The Russian text is concise and understandable but lacks explicit comparison.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description mentions 'convenient for mass point edits,' hinting at a batch scenario, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_object' or 'execute_batch.' No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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