Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
lyra-mcp

lyra-mcp

by Ralf090102
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_stage_config

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the current persistent baseline configuration for any RAG/agent pipeline stage by supplying its stage ID.

Instructions

Get a stage's current persistent baseline config.

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": {
      "stage_id": "<stage_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_stage_config"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stage_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds the nuance 'current persistent baseline config', which clarifies it is not runtime/transient configuration, but it does not disclose further behavioral details such as error cases or response shape.

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?

One sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler or redundant restatement. It earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with readOnly and idempotent annotations plus an output schema, the description is largely complete. The only context gap is explicit guidance on when to prefer sibling tools, but the get-vs-set/list semantics make this reasonably inferable.

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 compensate for stage_id. It ties the parameter to 'a stage's' config, but it does not explain how to obtain or format stage_id. The parameter name and title already do most of the work.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('a stage's current persistent baseline config'). This clearly distinguishes it from its siblings 'set_stage_config' (set vs. get) and 'list_stages' (list all vs. get one).

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?

'Get a stage's current persistent baseline config' implies use when you need the saved baseline for a single stage, but it does not explicitly say when to use this vs. list_stages or set_stage_config. No alternatives or exclusion conditions are mentioned.

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