RCF MCP Server

by Diraw

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

compute.collect_results

compute_collect_results

Read-only

Lists result files for a specified compute run directly on their storage nodes, avoiding bulk data transfer.

Instructions

List the result files of a run in place (no bulk transfer between nodes).

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": {
      "run_id": "<run_id>"
    },
    "name": "compute_collect_results"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`run_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior context — results are listed in place rather than moved between nodes — but says nothing about what the listing contains (paths, sizes, availability) or whether the run must be finished first.

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 with no wasted words. The parenthetical is compact and carries real information rather than restating the title.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action but leaves return shape, run-state prerequisites, and the run_id meaning unaddressed. Adequate to call, not complete enough to predict the outcome.

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

Parameters2/5

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

There is one required parameter, run_id, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning about it (format, where to obtain it, or behavior for an unknown/incomplete run). With a single undocumented parameter the description should compensate and does not.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (result files of a run) plus a scoping qualifier (in place). The parenthetical hints at the distinction from a transfer-style sibling, but it never names that sibling, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'No bulk transfer between nodes' implies this is the inspect-without-copying option versus compute_fetch_results, but the description never names the alternative or states the condition for choosing it. Usage is inferable, not stated.

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