Add existing entities to a dataset.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | CatchAll API key. Optional if provided via x-api-key header or CATCHALL_API_KEY env var. | |
| dataset_id | Yes | The dataset ID to add entities to. | |
| entity_ids | Yes | List of entity IDs to add (required). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, but the description does not disclose behavior such as whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if entities are already in the dataset, or if the dataset must exist. For a mutation tool, more transparency is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no waste. However, it is so brief that it omits important context, balancing conciseness with completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, but the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., success status or list of added entities). Given the simplicity, the description is minimally complete but could be more informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, so the schema already describes each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (add) and resources (entities to a dataset). 'Existing entities' distinguishes from creation tools like create_entity or create_entities_batch. However, it could be more specific about what 'entities' are relative to the system.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_entities_batch or remove_dataset_entities. No prerequisites mentioned (e.g., entities must already exist). The agent gets no context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but some pairs like create_dataset vs create_dataset_from_csv or pull_results vs pull_job_csv could cause confusion. However, descriptions clarify differences.
Tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_dataset, list_datasets) with minor exceptions like append_csv_to_dataset and pull_job_csv. Overall predictable.
60 tools is high for an MCP server, but the domain (web research, job processing, multiple resource types) justifies the count. Still borders on excessive.
The server offers full CRUD for datasets, entities, monitors, projects, webhooks, plus job submission, status polling, result retrieval (JSON/CSV), webhook management, and health endpoints. No obvious gaps.