Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
omiss-mcp

omiss-mcp

by qso-graph
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Omiss Award Rules

omiss_award_rules
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve an OMISS award’s rules by ID, or list every award’s name, ID, and summary when no ID is provided. Use it to look up award criteria or browse available awards.

Instructions

Get an OMISS award's rules, or (no award_id) every award's name, ID and summary.

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": "omiss_award_rules"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
award_idNoThe award's ID, from omiss_awards or this tool (e.g. ALPHABETSOUP).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds mode-dependent behavior, but it does not add much beyond that, and output-schema details are already available separately.

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 a single compact sentence with no wasted words. The primary behavior and the omitted-award_id fallback are front-loaded and easy to parse.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the key calling modes and parameter omission behavior. The main remaining gap is the lack of explicit sibling differentiation from omiss_awards.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the award_id parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds useful meaning by explaining what happens when award_id is omitted: the tool returns a summary listing rather than rules.

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 states a specific verb and resource: get an OMISS award's rules. It also explains the overloaded mode when award_id is omitted, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling omiss_awards tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly explains the two usage modes: provide award_id to get one award's rules, or omit it to list every award's name, ID and summary. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use omiss_awards instead.

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