Algenta MCP Server

register_trigger

Register a real-time trigger that watches a data source for a threshold condition. When the condition is met, the engine auto-runs the simulation template and optionally fires a webhook. Examples: 'alert me when monthly revenue drops below $80k', 'simulate expansion if Downtown revenue exceeds $200k'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Human-readable trigger name.
`condition`	Yes	Threshold condition to watch.
`description`	No	Human-readable description of what this trigger monitors.
`webhook_url`	No	Optional HTTPS URL to POST results to when the trigger fires.
`auto_execute`	No	When true, automatically dispatch the decision plan to execution_webhook_url after the trigger fires.
`simulation_template`	Yes	SimulateRequest-compatible payload to run when trigger fires.
`execution_webhook_url`	No	Optional HTTPS URL to POST the DecisionPlan execution payload to when auto_execute is enabled.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedJul 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'real-time', 'watches a data source', and 'auto-runs the simulation template', which gives some behavioral context, but it omits details like whether the trigger is immediately active, permissions needed, or any side effects. Adequate but incomplete.

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 two sentences plus examples, front-loading the core action. Every element is purposeful and there is no redundancy or filler. It is optimally concise.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description gives a high-level purpose and examples but does not explain what the response is or how the nested condition structure works. The schema covers the details, but the description could be more complete for an agent to confidently invoke it.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema, only a general notion of 'threshold condition' and examples. It does not elaborate on individual parameter meanings or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses 'Register a real-time trigger' as a specific verb+resource, and the examples solidify the purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_trigger, fire_trigger, and pause_trigger, which serve different lifecycle functions.

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 description provides examples but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like fire_trigger or list_triggers. There is no guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it, leaving the agent without clear decision criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Algenta MCP Server tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct resources or actions, but there is some overlap (e.g., run_repository_fix vs run_repository_pipeline vs simulate_repository) that could cause confusion. Overall, descriptions help differentiate.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names are primarily snake_case with a verb_noun pattern, but there are inconsistencies (e.g., single-word verbs like 'simulate', 'tokenize', and mixed prefixes like 'preview_', 'product_'). The pattern is readable but not uniform.

Tool Count1/5

With 140 tools, the server is extremely over-scoped for typical MCP usage. This overwhelms agents and suggests poor separation of concerns, likely violating the principle of minimal tool surfaces.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of functionalities including data onboarding, simulation, decisions, repository management, and admin operations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update_agent_run), but core workflows are well-supported.

Resources

Need Help?