Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
omiss-mcp

omiss-mcp

by qso-graph
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Omiss Officers

omiss_officers
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists OMISS officers, directors, band coordinators, committee members, appointees, past presidents and other VIPs.

Instructions

List OMISS's officers, directors, band coordinators, committees, appointees, past presidents and other VIPs.

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_officers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered elsewhere. The description adds content scope (which role categories appear) but says nothing about freshness, pagination, or whether the list is a fixed snapshot — modest added value beyond the structured fields.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every listed term adds informational content about the result set. Nothing is repeated from the name or schema.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and the no-parameter signature keeps the surface small. It covers what an agent needs to select the tool; only the freshness/snapshot question remains implicit.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to clarify on the input side. The role enumeration mildly helps an agent predict result shape but is not a parameter concern.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus a concrete resource enumeration of the organizational roles it returns (officers, directors, band coordinators, committees, past presidents). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like omiss_member_lookup or omiss_checkin_history, which serve member-level and activity data rather than leadership rosters.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for leadership/contact-role questions, but the description never states when to prefer it over omiss_member_lookup or what it excludes. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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