openGym MCP Bridge

search

Finds openGym training-data sections by query and returns fixed result IDs for fetching details; read-only and writes nothing.

Instructions

Read-only search over available openGym training-data sections. Returns fixed result IDs for use with fetch. Does not write anything.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.1Oct 27, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses read-only/no-write behavior and result-ID return, but says nothing about permissions, matching semantics, result limits, ordering, or pagination; the safety disclosure is useful 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the key read-only and return-ID facts. The final sentence repeats 'read-only' with 'does not write anything,' so it is not maximally tight but still efficient.

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 simple one-parameter search, the description gives enough to call it and know results feed fetch. It omits what 'sections' includes and how the query is interpreted, and with no output schema it only loosely characterizes the result shape.

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 parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The description only implies that 'query' searches training-data sections; it does not explain query syntax, matching behavior, or how the 200-character limit affects results.

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 read operation and scope ('openGym training-data sections') and notes that results are IDs for fetch. However, 'sections' is vague, and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling search_exercises, so an agent cannot fully tell which search to choose.

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?

Explains the downstream workflow (result IDs are for fetch) and implies search-then-fetch use. It does not say when to use this versus search_exercises or the get_* tools, and it gives no exclusions.

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