Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
RBPaaS MCP Server

RBPaaS MCP Server

by mm-gtm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_project_efficiency

Retrieve project efficiency metrics for daily, weekly, or monthly periods to evaluate performance and support data-driven decisions.

Instructions

プロジェクト別の効率指標を取得する。

Args: period: 集計期間 (daily/weekly/monthly)。デフォルトはmonthly。

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": "get_project_efficiency"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
periodNomonthly

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions the parameter default and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, how aggregation works, or what the resulting data represents.

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 very concise: one sentence plus parameter details. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes no unnecessary text.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It clarifies purpose and parameter, but it does not explain what 'efficiency' means or what the response will contain, leaving some ambiguity.

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 schema has zero description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining the 'period' parameter: aggregation period (daily/weekly/monthly) with a default of monthly. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema definition.

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 clearly states it retrieves efficiency metrics for each project ('プロジェクト別の効率指標を取得する'). It uses a specific verb and resource, but the term 'efficiency indicators' is somewhat vague and does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_project_kpis or get_project_detail.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context, usage scenarios, or exclusions, and does not mention any related sibling tools.

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