Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mqdh-mcp

mqdh-mcp

by thankyoucoinbase
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

graphql

Execute raw GraphQL queries against graph.oculus.com as the logged-in developer, enabling advanced access to Meta Quest developer data.

Instructions

Run a raw GraphQL query against graph.oculus.com as the logged-in developer (advanced).

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "graphql"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYes
variablesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the endpoint and that execution happens as the logged-in developer, but says nothing about whether mutations are possible, permission requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or response format for a raw query tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately terse for a description, though the terseness contributes to gaps covered in other dimensions.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a raw GraphQL escape hatch with nested variables, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. An agent lacks enough information about parameter usage, mutation safety, and expected return/error behavior to invoke it confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'variables' object at all. It implies the 'query' parameter should be raw GraphQL, but provides no guidance on variables syntax, formatting, or how the two parameters interact.

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: run a raw GraphQL query against graph.oculus.com as the logged-in developer. It clearly identifies an escape-hatch tool, though it does not explicitly name when to use it instead of siblings like metavr or list_apps.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The only usage cue is the parenthetical '(advanced)', which signals audience rather than conditions. There is no explanation of when this tool is appropriate versus the many higher-level sibling tools, and 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