Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@inscada/mcp-server

@inscada/mcp-server

Official
by inscada-app
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

get_custom_menu_by_name

Read-only

Find a custom menu by name and retrieve its exact details from the system.

Instructions

Find and get custom menu details by name (exact match).

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "get_custom_menu_by_name"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesMenu name (exact match)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.7.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds the 'exact match' constraint but does not describe the return format or potential outcomes (e.g., not found). With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word is necessary.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, clear annotations), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the tool's purpose and matching rule. The lack of output schema details is acceptable as the tool name implies it returns details.

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 description repeats the same info ('exact match') as the schema parameter description. No additional semantics or constraints are added beyond the schema.

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 finds and gets custom menu details by exact name. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings like list_custom_menus (which lists all) and get_custom_menu (presumably by ID).

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 provides clear context: use when you have an exact menu name. It does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives like get_custom_menu or list_custom_menus, but the exact match condition is a strong indicator.

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