Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
DEX_MCP

DEX_MCP

Official
by teamviewer
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

consumers_get_by_name

Retrieve a single consumer by name from a DEX tenant. Provide plain text name; Base64 encoding is handled automatically.

Instructions

Return a single Consumer by name (Base64-encoded automatically). Requires 'Read' on 'Consumer'.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "consumers_get_by_name"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesConsumer name (plain text)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful traits: the name is Base64-encoded automatically (so callers should pass plain text) and Read permission on Consumer is required. It does not specify not-found behavior or return shape, but the declared traits exceed the minimum for a simple lookup.

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 conveys the operation, the lookup key, the encoding behavior, and the permission requirement with no redundant wording.

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 simple one-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains what is returned, how to pass the parameter, and what permission is needed. The only minor gap is not stating the behavior when no Consumer matches, so a perfect score is not warranted.

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 schema already documents the name parameter as plain text. The description adds meaningful value by stating that Base64 encoding happens automatically, preventing the agent from pre-encoding the value.

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 states a clear verb ('Return'), a specific resource ('a single Consumer'), and the lookup key ('by name'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like consumers_get_by_id (by ID), consumers_list (all), and consumers_search (search).

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 use case is implied: use this when you need an exact Consumer by name and have Read permission. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as consumers_search or consumers_get_by_id, leaving the selection mostly to inference.

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