calagopus-mcp

GET any panel API path

calagopus_get

Read-only

Perform raw authenticated GET requests to any API path on the Calagopus panel, returning JSON verbatim for endpoints not covered by dedicated tools.

Instructions

Escape hatch: issue a raw authenticated GET against any path on the configured panel and return the JSON verbatim. Use it for endpoints the dedicated tools do not cover — find paths with calagopus_list_endpoints first. Only GET is possible; this server cannot create, modify or delete anything.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "calagopus_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	API path on the configured panel, e.g. /api/admin/nodes/{uuid}/capacity. Must be a path, not a full URL.
`query`	No	Query string parameters, e.g. { page: "2", per_page: "50" }.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) align with the description's explicit statement that only GET is possible and the server cannot create, modify, or delete anything. The description adds context about authentication and verbatim JSON return, with no contradictions.

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 concise sentences with purpose stated first, followed by usage guidance. No redundant wording or unnecessary detail.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return value ('JSON verbatim'). It also covers when to use it relative to siblings and mentions authentication and method restrictions, making it complete for an escape-hatch 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% for both parameters (path and query). The description adds minimal extra context beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states it issues a raw authenticated GET against any panel path and returns JSON verbatim. The verb 'issue' plus resource 'any path on the configured panel' and method 'GET' distinguish it from dedicated sibling tools as an escape hatch.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly instructs to use it for endpoints not covered by dedicated tools, directs users to find paths via calagopus_list_endpoints first, and states only GET is possible, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

Deploy Server