Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Gdc

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get Project

get_project
Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up a single NCI GDC project by project_id (e.g. "TCGA-BRCA") and get its details plus summary counts (case_count, file_count). Keyless, open-access metadata.

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_id": "TCGA-BRCA"
    },
    "name": "get_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesGDC project id, e.g. "TCGA-BRCA", "TARGET-AML".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "project_id": "TCGA-BRCA"
+  },
+  {
+    "project_id": "TARGET-AML"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotent, read-only, non-destructive. The description adds that it returns summary counts and notes 'keyless, open-access metadata,' which is useful behavioral context.

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?

Two straightforward sentences, front-loaded with core action. No unnecessary words.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given a simple lookup with one parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (details plus summary counts) and access requirements.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description and examples. The description repeats the purpose but does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 states the tool looks up a single NCI GDC project by project_id and returns details plus summary counts. It gives a concrete example (TCGA-BRCA) and distinguishes from list_projects by focusing on single project lookup.

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 description implicitly indicates use for single project lookups but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives like list_projects. However, the context of sibling tools makes it clear.

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

All Gdc 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