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

mcp-bd-readonly

by noemartinezoptima
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

saldos_cliente

Retrieve a client's invoiced, collected, and pending balance amounts by client ID from the read-only MySQL invoicing database.

Instructions

Facturado vs cobrado y pendiente de un cliente

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": {
      "cliente_id": "<cliente_id>"
    },
    "name": "saldos_cliente"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cliente_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
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, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the calculation subject — no indication that it is read-only, no permission requirements, no note on whether figures are period-scoped or how they are aggregated.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is a single compact phrase with no wasted words and the subject is front-loaded, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, this fragment leaves an agent without enough information to know what the tool returns or how to call it beyond supplying a client ID.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter cliente_id, so the description must compensate and does not: it never mentions the parameter, its type, or how to identify a client. Only the phrase 'de un cliente' loosely implies a client scope.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the resource (a client's balances) and the metrics computed (invoiced vs collected vs pending), which is more than a tautology. However, no verb frames the operation, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like facturas_venta, cuadre_factura, or informe_financiero, so it is only minimally clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of facturas_venta, cuadre_factura, or the other financial siblings. Usage can only be inferred from the resource name, and no prerequisites or exclusions are 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