RCF MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

compute.list_nodes

compute_list_nodes

Read-only

Lists declared compute nodes with their kind, labels, and SSH alias, without network access. Use it to inspect available nodes and plan job placement before submitting work.

Instructions

List declared compute nodes with kind, labels and SSH alias (no network access).

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_list_nodes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context with "declared" (config-declared nodes, not live-discovered) and "(no network access)", telling the agent the call cannot hang on unreachable hosts and returns only local declaration data.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource first, the returned fields second, and a parenthetical caveat last. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description does the needed work by naming the returned fields and clarifying that no remote connection occurs. It is nearly complete; only an explicit pointer to compute_inspect_node for per-node detail is missing.

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 description correctly implies a no-argument, list-everything call with no filtering options.

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 and resource ("List declared compute nodes") and even names the returned fields (kind, labels, SSH alias). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling compute_inspect_node, which is the natural alternative for detail on a single node, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb "List": an agent can infer this is the enumeration entry point before drilling in with compute_inspect_node, but the description never says when to use this versus inspection or verification tools, and offers no prerequisites or exclusions.

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