Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-bd-readonly

mcp-bd-readonly

by noemartinezoptima
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

resumen_iva

Calculate quarterly VAT base, VAT amount, and total from a read-only MySQL invoicing database by specifying year and quarter (1-4).

Instructions

Base/IVA/Total de un trimestre (anio + trimestre 1-4)

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": {
      "trimestre": "<trimestre>",
      "anio": "<anio>"
    },
    "name": "resumen_iva"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
anioYes
trimestreYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

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 carries the full burden. It reveals the return metrics but says nothing about data scope (which company/ejercicio, all invoices or a subset), permissions, or whether the figures are cached or computed live — significant gaps for a financial summary tool.

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?

A single compact line with the key constraint parenthesized at the end; nothing is redundant. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but that is a completeness issue rather than padding.

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 two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials (inputs and the three output figures) but omits the calculation's data scope and the year format. It is minimally viable, not complete.

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 coverage is 0%: both parameters have only a title and no description or enum. The description compensates for one of them by supplying the valid range for 'trimestre' (1-4), which the schema does not encode, but it adds nothing for 'anio' (format, valid range, or 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 the resource (a quarter's IVA) and the three outputs it produces (Base/IVA/Total), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like facturas_venta or informe_financiero. The verb is implicit rather than stated ('compute/get'), but the domain and scope are unambiguous.

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 indication of when to use this versus informe_financiero, cuadre_factura, or saldos_cliente. The parameter list implies a quarterly tax-reporting use case, but that is inference, not guidance, and there are no prerequisites or exclusions stated.

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