Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Nimbus BCI

by io.github.nimbusbci
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Validate Protocol

protocol.validate
Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate a neurofeedback protocol document WITHOUT saving it. Returns {valid: true, spec} on success, or {valid: false, errors: [...]} with the per-violation list (loc/msg) when the document is invalid — the verdict is data, never an exception.

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": {
      "spec": "<spec>"
    },
    "name": "protocol.validate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
specYesWire-format protocol document (camelCase): id, name, indicator {name, transform}, armDefaults, blocks [{id, kind: assessment|training, durationSec, feedback?}], threshold, sessions, breakCriteria.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: invalid input returns a verdict as data with per-violation loc/msg rather than throwing, which changes how an agent must handle the result. The output schema carries the exact shape, so full marks aren't warranted.

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 key distinction (validation without persistence), then the return contract. Tight overall, though the explicit success/failure payload listing partially duplicates what the output schema already declares.

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?

With an output schema, rich annotations, and full schema coverage, the description only needs to add the dry-run distinction and the error-as-data contract, and it does both. It could note whether validation is purely structural or also semantic, which is the one remaining ambiguity for a nested protocol document.

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% and the single nested spec parameter is documented field-by-field in the schema, including the camelCase wire-format requirement and the block structure. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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?

"Validate a neurofeedback protocol document WITHOUT saving it" states a specific verb and resource, and the capitalized WITHOUT immediately separates it from protocol.save, the closest sibling. An agent can pick this tool over the persistence variant without reading either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The dry-run framing gives clear usage context: call this when you want a verdict without persisting. It stops short of explicitly naming protocol.save as the follow-up or stating that this must precede a save, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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