Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
clm-mcp

clm-mcp

by sabadia
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

clm_count_working_packages

Read-onlyIdempotent

Count lean cards for a site and get breakdowns by status, including overdue, active, pending, and completed working packages.

Instructions

Count of lean cards (working packages) for a site, broken down by status (overdue, active, pending, completed).

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": "clm_count_working_packages"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
site_idNoSite to query. Defaults to the authenticated caller's own site.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the status breakdown and the scope of the count. It does not mention edge cases like archived cards, but for a read-only count this is acceptable.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the resource, the scope, and the breakdown in a compact form.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, one optional parameter with a clear schema description, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could be improved with explicit guidance on when to use the count versus list variants, but nothing critical is missing for invocation.

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?

The input schema already provides full coverage for the single optional parameter, including its default behavior. The description merely references 'for a site' and adds no new parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly specifies the function: counting lean cards (working packages) for a site. It also communicates the aggregation by status (overdue, active, pending, completed), which differentiates it from list-type and shipment-count sibling tools.

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?

The description implies use for site-level working package counts, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over clm_list_working_packages or clm_count_shipments. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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