Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
grandma2-mcp

grandma2-mcp

by RaSteaks
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

ma2_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists native grandMA2 objects or ranges, such as Executor 3.1 Thru 3.8 or Root 10.6.3, for inspecting show structure without command chains.

Instructions

List a native object/range, e.g. Executor 3.1 Thru 3.8 or Root 10.6.3; no command chains.

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": {
      "object": "<object>"
    },
    "name": "ma2_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
objectYes
targetNoonpc

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the scope constraint ('no command chains') but says nothing about returned data shape, behavior on nonexistent objects, or how 'target' affects execution.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the exclusion appended compactly. No waste, though the extreme terseness borders on cryptic for a jargon-heavy domain.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations fully cover the safety profile. What remains missing is the 'target' parameter's meaning, which is significant enough to temper this score only slightly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does supply valid 'object' syntax via examples, but 'target' (defaulting to 'onpc') is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('native object/range') with concrete examples (Executor 3.1 Thru 3.8, Root 10.6.3). The trailing 'no command chains' implicitly separates it from ma2_execute, though it doesn't name the sibling.

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 exclusion 'no command chains' hints that command execution belongs to another tool (ma2_execute), but the description never states when to prefer this over ma2_status or ma2_export, nor any prerequisites such as needing an active session.

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