Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Nimbus BCI

by io.github.nimbusbci
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Export Dataset as BIDS

bids.export_dataset
Idempotent

Export a Nimbus dataset as a BIDS-layout zip (local: saved to NIMBUS_EXPORT_DIR/bids/; hosted gateway: inline contentBase64, up to 1 MB).

Continuous sources (EDF/BDF uploads, stream recordings) export as BIDS-raw (EDF byte-passthrough; recordings converted HDF5→EDF with events.tsv). Epoched sources (MOABB packs, trial-table uploads) export as BIDS-derivatives (data passthrough + descriptive trial_index/label/session/run events — no fabricated onsets). The zip embeds nimbus_export_manifest.json with sha256s.

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": {
      "dataset": "<dataset>"
    },
    "name": "bids.export_dataset"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNoOptional explicit source kind: pack|upload|recording (default auto).
datasetYesDataset id — a MOABB pack id (e.g. "BNCI2014_001"), an upload path (as returned by data.upload), or a recording name. Auto-detected.
subjectsNoPack exports only — subject filter (e.g. ["S01", "S03"]) to bound zip size; default exports all installed subjects.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / kind / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "auto",
+  "pack",
+  "upload",
+  "recording",
+  null
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: the local zip destination NIMBUS_EXPORT_DIR/bids/, the hosted-gateway inline contentBase64 path capped at 1 MB, byte-passthrough versus HDF5→EDF conversion, the 'no fabricated onsets' guarantee, and the embedded sha256 manifest. That is exactly the kind of side-effect and size-limit disclosure an agent needs before calling.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the core action and output location before the source-kind details, and no sentence is redundant. It is fairly dense with parentheticals, but each clause (size cap, conversion path, manifest) carries distinct information.

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 an output schema exists and annotations carry the safety profile, the description covers the critical unknowns: where output lands, the 1 MB inline cap, and how each source kind is transformed. It stops short of covering overwrite semantics for existing export files or failure conditions, which leaves a small gap for a filesystem-writing tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (kind, dataset, subjects) are already documented in the schema itself, including the auto-detection behavior and the 'pack exports only' restriction. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource plus output format: 'Export a Nimbus dataset as a BIDS-layout zip'. It then characterizes the input families (continuous vs epoched sources), which distinguishes it clearly from sibling export tools such as bids.export_execution and pipeline.export.

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?

Usage is implied by the source-kind routing (EDF/BDF and stream recordings → BIDS-raw, MOABB packs and trial tables → BIDS-derivatives), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative, even though a close sibling bid.export_execution exists. An agent can infer context but is not told when to prefer this over other export siblings.

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

All Nimbus BCI toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources