RCF MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

compute.pin_run

compute_pin_run

Pin or unpin a compute run to protect it from cleanup; pinning requires a reason and confirmation, while unpinning leaves run files intact.

Instructions

Pin or unpin a run against cleanup. Requires confirm=true; pinning requires a reason. Unpinning does not delete files.

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_pin_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pinned`	No
`reason`	No
`run_id`	Yes
`confirm`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Only readOnlyHint=false is supplied, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the confirm gate, the reason requirement for pinning, and reassures that unpinning is non-destructive to files — but says nothing about idempotency, permissions, or what the call returns.

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?

Three short sentences with the action first and the two hard constraints immediately after; nothing is padded or redundant.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and a single safety annotation, the description supplies the essential gating rules and a non-destructiveness clarification. It is slightly thin on whether the operation is idempotent and what happens to already-pinned runs.

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%, so the description must explain all four parameters. It covers confirm (must be true), reason (required for pinning), and implicitly the pinned toggle via "pin or unpin", but run_id and the default values are left entirely to the schema.

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?

"Pin or unpin a run against cleanup" gives a specific verb pair (pin/unpin), a clear resource (run), and the effect (exclusion from cleanup), which separates it from the storage-plan cleanup siblings. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative, but the purpose is unmistakable.

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 description states preconditions (confirm=true, reason required when pinning) but never says when an agent should pin versus run compute_plan_storage_cleanup or compute_scan_storage, nor when to unpin. Usage is implied by the verb rather than guided.

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