Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wealify-kpi-mcp

wealify-kpi-mcp

by ngkienmkqn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

kpi_scoring_coverage

Identify active members missing scoring data for the current month, so team leads can remind them before the scoring lock.

Instructions

Active members who still lack data to be scored this month (so a Lead can be reminded before lock).

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": {
      "month": "<month>"
    },
    "name": "kpi_scoring_coverage"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
monthYesMonth as 'YYYY-MM'
chapterNoFilter by chapter

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states the output is a list of members lacking data, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, destructive, or any side effects. The phrase 'before lock' hints at a deadline but lacks specificity.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence, directly conveying the core purpose. It is front-loaded and efficient, though slightly informal (e.g., 'so a Lead can be reminded'). No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and simple parameters (month, chapter), the description is mostly adequate but lacks details on the output format (e.g., member identifiers, counts). It does not specify pagination or limits. Sibling tools like kpi_members suggest similar focus, so completeness is moderate.

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%, with clear descriptions for 'month' and 'chapter' (including enum values). The tool description adds context about 'remind a Lead' but does not enhance parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 indicates the tool identifies active members lacking scoring data for the month, hinting at a reminder function. It differentiates from sibling tools like kpi_members or kpi_alerts by specifying 'coverage' and 'before lock', but could be more explicit.

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 implies usage for checking coverage before a deadline, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of when not to use or recommended contexts.

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