Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nina-mcp

nina-mcp

by anarcoiris
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

ts_recent_events

Retrieve recent Target Scheduler status events from NINA, including target start and wait events, to monitor live imaging state.

Instructions

Get recent Target Scheduler status events forwarded through NINA: TS-WAITSTART (scheduler is waiting for the next imaging window), TS-NEWTARGETSTART / TS-TARGETSTART (scheduler picked a target and started imaging it, with target name, project name, coordinates, rotation, and expected end time). This is TS's actual live state -- the database only holds its configuration and historical progress.

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": "ts_recent_events"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the nature of events (live state) and lists examples, but does not specify recency definition, ordering, or any side effects.

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 with no wasted words, front-loaded with purpose, and efficient use of examples.

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?

Although the output schema exists, the description omits parameter details and ordering. It is adequate for a simple tool but not fully complete.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain the 'limit' parameter at all, leaving the agent to guess its meaning.

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 recent Target Scheduler status events forwarded through NINA, listing specific event types. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ts_read_table by contrasting live state with database configuration/historical data.

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 implies when to use (for live status) by contrasting with database content, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools.

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