Skip to main content
Glama
iseppo

e-arveldaja MCP Server

by iseppo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Recommend Workflow

recommend_workflow
Read-onlyIdempotent

Recommends a safe e-arveldaja workflow for a user's goal, helping decide next steps when multiple tools are available.

Instructions

Recommend the safest e-arveldaja workflow for a user goal. Use this when the user asks what to do next or when choosing among many tools.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
goalNoNatural-language goal, such as 'book this invoice PDF' or 'import bank statement'. Omit to list common workflows.
risk_toleranceNoDEPRECATED — use interaction_style. Accepted for compatibility and mapped to detail depth only (fast→concise, balanced→guided, careful→detailed); it controls no safety behavior.
interaction_styleNoHow much explanation/detail to include. Affects response depth ONLY — it never changes which workflow or steps are recommended, and never any safety behavior.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.29.2
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.25.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / interaction_style
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "How much explanation/detail to include. Affects response depth ONLY — it never changes which workflow or steps are recommended, and never any safety behavior.",
+  "enum": [
+    "concise",
+    "guided",
+    "detailed"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / risk_tolerance / description
      Previous value: -"How much friction to prefer. balanced keeps boring safe steps low-friction and interrupts on risk."New value: +"DEPRECATED — use interaction_style. Accepted for compatibility and mapped to detail depth only (fast→concise, balanced→guided, careful→detailed); it controls no safety behavior."
  3. First observedv0.18.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the 'safest workflow' framing, with no word on return shape, whether recommendations are persisted, or latency. Adequate but thin against an annotation-covered read-only tool.

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, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the triggering condition second. Nothing needs trimming or reordering.

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?

For a zero-required-parameter, read-only recommender with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description gives enough for correct invocation. It could note what the recommendation response contains, but the absence of an output schema keeps that from being a real gap.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema itself is unusually rich (it documents the goal omit-to-list behavior and the deprecated risk_tolerance mapping and its non-effect on safety). The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable given the baseline for fully-covered schemas.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('recommend the safest e-arveldaja workflow') scoped to a user goal, so the agent knows this is a router/meta tool rather than a CRUD operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbors like continue_accounting_workflow or get_execution_plan_page, leaving some ambiguity about which meta tool applies.

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?

Explicitly names the triggering conditions: 'when the user asks what to do next or when choosing among many tools.' That is a clear, actionable when-to-use. There is no stated when-not-to-use and no named alternative for the ambiguous meta-tool cases.

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