Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Metrx MCP Server

Metrx MCP Server

by metrxbots
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get Candidate Proposals

metrx_get_proposals
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve current org-scoped candidate proposals with status, blocked reasons, estimated impact, and taxonomy axes for read-only review and prioritization.

Instructions

Org-scoped CURRENT candidate proposals: action type/class, D-class, status with blocked_reason (blocked_on_signal proposals name the failing dimension), estimated impact, taxonomy axes. Config payloads (config_diff, guardrails, rollback mechanics) are deliberately excluded. Read-only. Response is envelope-shaped: every numeric leaf is a MeasuredValue {value, ci_low, ci_high, method, data_through}. ci fields are null unless the source payload carries a real confidence interval — never fabricated. Requires an API key with the 'read' scope.

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": "metrx_get_proposals"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.5.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past the annotations: it discloses org scoping, that only current proposals are returned, what is deliberately omitted, the envelope return shape with MeasuredValue leaves, that ci fields are null rather than fabricated, and the required 'read' API scope. The annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent profile, and the description adds a substantial layer of behavioral context on top.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads what the tool returns, then omits, then the response envelope, then auth. Sentences are dense but each carries distinct information; the MeasuredValue and ci-explanation clauses are slightly heavy but genuinely useful given no output schema exists.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Since there is no output schema, the description must carry the return contract, and it does — envelope shape, numeric leaf structure, and null-CI policy are all spelled out. Combined with the auth requirement and deliberate exclusions, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this zero-parameter tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics to document and nothing misleading in that regard. The description compensates by clarifying that scoping is org-level rather than a caller-supplied parameter.

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 resource (org-scoped current candidate proposals) and enumerates exactly what each proposal carries: action type/class, D-class, status with blocked_reason, estimated impact, taxonomy axes. An agent can tell this apart from report-style siblings like metrx_get_attribution_report or metrx_get_scorecard, though it never names a sibling it is not.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'CURRENT' scopes to the live set, and the note that config payloads are 'deliberately excluded' tells the agent this is not the tool for config_diff, guardrails, or rollback mechanics. There is no explicit when-to-use or named alternative (e.g. the decision queue or optimization recommendations), so routing still requires inference.

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