Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kanysh Basic

Kanysh Basic

by almukhanomr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

source_scan

Read-onlyIdempotent

List metadata for a source folder and its CSV, LAS, SEG-Y, NPY, and JSON files and subfolders without reading contents; use listing_revision to page through results.

Instructions

Metadata of one folder: CSV/LAS/SEG-Y/NPY/JSON files and subfolders, without reading contents. The next page requires listing_revision.

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": {
      "request": "<request>"
    },
    "name": "source_scan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestYesTool arguments object (all fields documented; Z is positive upward).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: it explicitly says contents are not read, which is the key safety/performance trait, and notes the revision token needed to continue paging.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and zero filler. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say more about what the returned metadata looks like (file entries, sizes, subfolder shape, pagination fields). It covers the read-only, non-content nature and paging continuation but leaves the return shape underspecified.

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%, so path, limit, offset, source_id, and listing_revision are all documented in the schema. The description only echoes listing_revision and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields, so baseline 3 applies.

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 resource and scope: metadata of one folder with listed file types and subfolders, explicitly without reading contents. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like source_list or source_inspect, so an agent must infer which source tool to pick.

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 pagination hint ('The next page requires listing_revision') gives real usage context for continued calls. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus source_list/source_inspect, and no stated prerequisite that source_id comes from source_list (only the schema says that).

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