Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
omiss-mcp

omiss-mcp

by qso-graph
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Omiss Awards

omiss_awards
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists OMISS awards with recipients and returns the award IDs other award tools require.

Instructions

List the OMISS awards that have recipients, with the award IDs the other award tools take.

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_awards"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one real behavioral fact — that only awards with recipients are returned — but says nothing about size, ordering, or how IDs should be reused; return shape is covered by the output schema.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the qualifying/secondary clauses each carry distinct information. No filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

A zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with full annotations and an output schema needs only to say what it lists and what the entries are for; the description does both.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; schema coverage is also 100% on an empty object. Nothing in the parameter space needs describing.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('OMISS awards') with an explicit scope qualifier: only awards that have recipients. The second clause ('award IDs the other award tools take') identifies the payload and how it differs from the related rules/recipients tools.

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?

Clearly implies this is the discovery/prerequisite call whose output IDs feed 'the other award tools', which tells the agent where it sits in a call chain. It stops short of naming the specific siblings (omiss_award_rules vs. omiss_award_recipients) or stating when not to use it.

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