Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Nimbus BCI

by io.github.nimbusbci
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Export Run as BIDS

bids.export_execution
Idempotent

Export an execution's results as a BIDS-derivative zip (metrics.json, per-subject participants.tsv, protocol.json, full pipeline_snapshot.json, predictions.tsv when stored, provenance/execution.json). Local: saved to NIMBUS_EXPORT_DIR/bids/. Hosted gateway: inline contentBase64 (up to 1 MB of base64); larger zips point to Nimbus Studio.

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": {
      "execution_id": "<execution_id>"
    },
    "name": "bids.export_execution"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
execution_idYesRun whose results to export (from execution.run).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description adds real context beyond that: where the artifact lands (NIMBUS_EXPORT_DIR/bids/), the inline contentBase64 delivery path with a 1 MB base64 ceiling, and the fallback to Nimbus Studio for larger zips. That size limit and dual delivery mode are exactly the operational details annotations cannot convey; it stops short of saying whether an existing export is overwritten.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and artifact type, then the manifest list, then the local-vs-gateway delivery split. The parenthetical file list is long but each item is informative; nothing is redundant filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be spelled out, yet the description still names the archive contents and both delivery modes, which is what an agent needs to decide how to consume the result. The only gap is overwrite/conflict behavior on repeated exports of the same execution, which the idempotentHint implies but does not explain.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage, and the schema already says it comes from execution.run, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates that the id identifies 'an execution's results' and adds no format, validation, or lookup guidance beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Export an execution's results as a BIDS-derivative zip') and enumerates the payload contents, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It never names the adjacent siblings (bids.export_dataset, pipeline.export, execution.artifacts), so the boundary against those is left to inference.

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 only implied: 'an execution's results' signals this is per-run, whereas bids.export_dataset and pipeline.export presumably operate on datasets and pipelines. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or pointer to an alternative, which matters given several export-shaped 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