grandma2-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ma2_execute

Destructive

Executes up to 100 authorized grandMA2 commands sequentially, stopping at the first failure; requires write access and a matching show.

Instructions

Execute up to 100 authorized commands sequentially; requires MA2_ALLOW_WRITE=1 and matching Show.

Not transactional. Stops at first failure; prior commands may already be applied. Do not retry after a timeout without querying state. User scope still governs every command.

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": {
      "commands": "<commands>",
      "expected_show": "<expected_show>"
    },
    "name": "ma2_execute"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`target`	No	onpc
`commands`	Yes
`expected_show`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and non-idempotent, and the description still adds substantive traits: non-transactional execution, stop-at-first-failure, partial application of prior commands, retry hazard after timeout, and user-scope governance per command. These are exactly the failure-mode details an agent needs before a destructive batch.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with capability and authorization, then failure semantics, then the retry warning. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

Return values need not be explained since an output schema exists, and the destructive/atomicity behavior is well covered. The gap is the unexplained 'target' parameter and no guidance on how expected_show mismatch is surfaced or detected at runtime.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it only clarifies 'commands' (array, up to 100) and implicitly 'expected_show' via 'matching Show'. The 'target' parameter (default 'onpc') is never mentioned in either the schema or the description, leaving one of three params fully opaque.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Execute ... commands sequentially') with a hard batch cap of 100 and the two authorizations required. This clearly separates it from the read-oriented siblings (ma2_status, ma2_list, ma2_export, ma2_backup).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives concrete preconditions (MA2_ALLOW_WRITE=1 and matching Show) and a clear prohibition ('Do not retry after a timeout without querying state'). It never names a sibling to use instead for inspection, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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

Deploy Server