knack_requestPower-user escape hatch: GET any Knack API path not wrapped by a dedicated tool (e.g. view-based reads). READ-ONLY — only GET is allowed. Path starts with a slash (e.g. "/objects/object_1/records"). Knack API: GET {path}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | API path starting with a slash, e.g. "/objects/object_1/records". | |
| query | No | Optional query params object. |
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?
Description reinforces readOnlyHint by stating 'READ-ONLY — only GET is allowed', adding detail beyond annotation. No mention of auth, rate limits, or error behavior, but standard for such a tool.
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?
Three sentences, each adding distinct information: purpose, restriction, and path format. Extremely concise and front-loaded.
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?
No output schema is provided; description does not mention return format or how to handle responses. The query parameter nested object usage is not explained. However, as a raw API tool, it may be acceptable for power users.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% but description adds value by clarifying path format with example and emphasizing read-only nature. The query parameter is not elaborated, but the description's context about 'escape hatch' aids understanding.
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 it is a 'power-user escape hatch' for GET requests to Knack API paths not covered by dedicated tools, which distinguishes it from siblings like knack_list_records.
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?
Explicitly states when to use (paths without dedicated tools) and that it is read-only; provides path format example. Does not explicitly list when not to use but context implies alternatives.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: CRUD for records, listing fields/objects/records, fetching application schema, and a generic request. No overlap in purpose.
All tools use 'knack_' prefix with verb_noun pattern (create_record, delete_record, etc.). The exception is 'knack_request' which lacks a verb, causing slight inconsistency.
9 tools is well-scoped for a Knack integration, covering essential CRUD, listing, schema retrieval, and an escape hatch.
Core CRUD operations are present, plus listing and schema. Missing batch operations or advanced filtering, but the generic request tool fills some gaps.