Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-remnawave

mcp-remnawave

by Nurullaev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

connections_get_node_result

Retrieve the results of a node connections fetch job using its job ID, giving you the status and connection data after processing.

Instructions

Get result of a node connections fetch job

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": {
      "jobId": "<jobId>"
    },
    "name": "connections_get_node_result"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jobIdYesJob ID from connections_fetch_by_node

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that a result is fetched. It does not mention whether the job may still be running, whether the result is polled or one-shot, what happens if the job is missing/expired, or what the returned payload looks like.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It conveys the core action and resource efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a job-result retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how to obtain a job ID, how to interpret the result, whether retries are needed, or how this fits with the connections_fetch_by_node workflow.

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 description coverage is 100%: the single parameter jobId is already documented as 'Job ID from connections_fetch_by_node'. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so it is correctly at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

The description names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('result of a node connections fetch job'), and the word 'node' distinguishes it from the analogous user-result tool. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly naming the companion fetch tool, but the intent is clear.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description offers no explicit guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives like connections_get_user_result, nor does it state that it should be used after connections_fetch_by_node. The only contextual hint is indirect, via the jobId parameter description in the schema.

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