Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nina-mcp

nina-mcp

by anarcoiris
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

nina_get_event_history

Retrieve recent event/notification history from NINA to monitor status changes, including Target Scheduler events, without maintaining an open websocket connection.

Instructions

Get NINA's recent event/notification history (the same stream sent over its websocket), most recent first. Useful for polling status changes -- including Target Scheduler's TS-WAITSTART / TS-TARGETSTART / TS-NEWTARGETSTART events -- without holding an open websocket connection open from an MCP tool call.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "nina_get_event_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the tool returns recent history in reverse chronological order and serves as a polling alternative to websockets. Although it doesn't detail limits or output structure, the behavioral intent is clear.

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 concise sentences front-load the core purpose and immediately add valuable usage guidance. No wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description could be more explicit about the output format. However, it states the history is the same as the websocket stream, which provides context. For a simple parameterless tool, this is nearly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately has no parameter details, as none exist.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves NINA's event history, most recent first, and distinguishes it by mentioning polling vs. websocket. It also specifies relevant Target Scheduler events, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly recommends polling for status changes and gives concrete event examples, implying when to use this tool instead of a websocket. It lacks explicit alternative tool names but provides sufficient context.

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