Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
norns-mcp

norns-mcp

by AdairBear
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

norns_params

Reads all running-script and system parameters—index, id, type, name, raw value, and display string—from a monome norns to inspect current script state.

Instructions

All params of the running script plus the system params: index, id, type, name, raw value and the display string the norns shows.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "norns_params"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully clarifies scope (includes system params, not just user script params) but never states that the call is non-mutating, what happens when no script is running, or whether reading params has any side effects.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence covering scope plus returned content, with no filler. The embedded line breaks make it slightly awkward to read but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a zero-argument read tool with an output schema already defining the return shape, the description covers what is being listed. The only meaningful gap is the precondition of a running script, which an agent would want stated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline applies. The mention of returned fields is arguably schema duplication, but it does not detract.

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?

The description names a specific resource set: all params of the running script plus system params, and even enumerates the returned fields (index, id, type, name, raw value, display string). An agent can tell this is the bulk param read, distinct from norns_set_param, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling norns_get_param or norns_current_script.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance and no exclusion of alternatives: nothing says to prefer norns_get_param for a single param, or that this requires a script to be loaded. Usage can only be inferred from the resource name.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools