Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
INFATON MCP35

INFATON MCP35

Official
by infaton
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

subscribe_events

Retrieve change events from the 1C journal since a given timestamp. Returns a watermark for incremental polling to synchronize digital twins.

Instructions

Получить события (изменения) из журнала регистрации 1С с момента указанной метки. Polling-based CDC для синхронизации двойников. Возвращает watermark для следующего запроса.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "subscribe_events"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sinceNoМетка времени ISO 8601 (по умолчанию 5 мин назад)
full_nameNoФильтр по типу объекта (необязательно)
max_eventsNoМакс. кол-во событий (по умолчанию 100, макс. 1000)
event_typesNoТипы событий через запятую (необязательно)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided. Description adds that it is polling-based and returns a watermark, but does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects. Adequate but not rich.

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 in Russian, efficiently front-loaded with essential purpose and behavior. No redundant information.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the high-level purpose and polling pattern. Could mention default for 'since' and max limit for 'max_events', but schema descriptions handle those. Overall sufficient for agent understanding.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema descriptions; it only states the overall purpose. No parameter-specific elaboration.

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 events from the 1C registration log starting from a specified mark, using polling-based CDC and returning a watermark for the next request. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_event_log which may be a single query.

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?

Implies polling-based usage for synchronization, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like get_changes_since or get_event_log. No alternatives or exclusions 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