Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
RBPaaS MCP Server

RBPaaS MCP Server

by mm-gtm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_member_kpis

Retrieve KPI metrics for each member in a project. Specify the project name and optional period (daily, weekly, monthly) to see individual performance.

Instructions

メンバー別のKPIを取得する。

Args: project_name: プロジェクト名（必須） period: 集計期間 (daily/weekly/monthly)。デフォルトはmonthly。

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": {
      "project_name": "<project_name>"
    },
    "name": "get_member_kpis"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
periodNomonthly
project_nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the aggregation period options (daily/weekly/monthly) and default, but does not describe the return structure, scope of 'members', or any read-only guarantees. The behavior is implied but not fully transparent.

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 extremely concise, using one sentence for purpose and a compact Args block. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential parameters and default behavior. However, it lacks details about what KPI fields are returned, whether filtering is possible, and how member scope is determined, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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?

The input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains period's allowed values and default, and clarifies project_name is required. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw 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 retrieves member-level KPIs (メンバー別のKPIを取得する), specifying the resource and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project_kpis and get_business_overview.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_project_kpis. The only usage-related information is the period parameter and its default, which is parameter semantics rather than usage context.

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