cdisc-library-mcp-server

call_operation

Invoke any operation from the CDISC Library API by supplying its operationId. Supports path, query, and body parameters.

Instructions

Invoke an OpenAPI operation by operationId. Supports path, query, and body inputs. Handles API key via env CDISC_API_KEY.

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": {
      "operationId": "<operationId>"
    },
    "name": "call_operation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`operationId`	Yes
`pathParams`	No
`query`	No
`body`	No
`headers`	No
`timeoutMs`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations present, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions API key handling via env var, which is useful. But it does not state whether operations are read-only or destructive, error behavior, or rate limits. Adds some value but incomplete.

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 crisp sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with core purpose and key capabilities (operationId, input types, API key handling). Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given no output schema, no annotations, and 6 parameters, the description covers essential invocation but lacks details on error handling, response format, or which operations are available. Adequate for a generic tool but leaves gaps.

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 0% with 6 parameters. Description adds meaning: 'path, query, and body inputs' map to pathParams, query, and body. However, headers and timeoutMs are not explained, and operationId's role is implied. Partial compensation for missing schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states it invokes an OpenAPI operation by operationId, specific verb and resource. Mentions input types. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools which are concrete operations, missing explicit distinction.

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?

No guidance on when to use this generic tool versus the many specific sibling operations (e.g., bc.get, sdtm.get). No alternatives or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent uncertain.

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