Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
DUMEdb

DUMEdb

by madbradsmith
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

dume_read_state

Reads an entity's active state registers from LMDB and decodes 32-byte records into a human-readable dictionary for direct inspection.

Instructions

Direct zero-copy LMDB read of active state registers for a given entity_id.
Decodes 32-byte records via SchemaDictionary into a human-readable dictionary.

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": "dume_read_state"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entity_idNoMadBrad-AG-01

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a direct zero-copy LMDB read and that records are decoded via SchemaDictionary, which usefully implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, but it does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, failure behavior, or consistency guarantees.

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 front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The key action and technical mechanism are stated immediately.

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?

The output schema exists, so return-format explanation is not required, and the description provides useful technical context. However, it leaves gaps around usage guidance versus siblings, entity_id semantics, and read-only safety behavior, which matter for a tool with no annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only says the read is 'for a given entity_id' without explaining the identifier format, expected values, or the schema-declared default.

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 names a specific verb (read) and resource (active state registers) and adds technical context about the LMDB zero-copy path and SchemaDictionary decoding. It is clear on its own but does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like dume_query or dume_read_adr.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives. An agent must infer usage from the purpose statement alone.

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