Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
RCF MCP Server

RCF MCP Server

by Diraw
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

compute.doctor

compute_doctor
Read-only

Reports configuration, dependency, and security status of an RCF installation to diagnose setup issues before running compute jobs.

Instructions

Report configuration, dependency and security status of this RCF installation.

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": "compute_doctor"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating call, so the description only needs to add context. It discloses the report's subject areas (config, dependencies, security) but not what form the result takes or whether findings are actionable/suggested fixes.

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 filler. Minor deduction because "RCF" is undefined domain jargon an agent may not resolve on its own.

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 parameterless, read-only diagnostic with no output schema, the declaration of what it inspects is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is that the shape of the returned status report is never hinted at.

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; baseline 4 applies. The schema itself is empty and adds no meaning either way.

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 ("Report") and concrete resources (configuration, dependency, security status) scoped to "this RCF installation", which separates it from node- or environment-level siblings like compute_node_selftest and compute_verify_environment. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

The installation-wide scope implies this is the first-stop diagnostic, but the description never says when to run it versus compute_check_storage, compute_node_selftest, or compute_verify_environment, nor any preconditions or frequency guidance.

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