Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nina-mcp

nina-mcp

by anarcoiris
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

ts_toggle_target_enabled

Toggle the enabled state of a specific target. Provide a target ID and set enabled to true to activate or false to deactivate.

Instructions

Toggle the enabled/active state of a specific target.

target_id: The unique ID of the target. enabled: True to enable/activate the target, False to disable.

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": {
      "target_id": "<target_id>",
      "enabled": "<enabled>"
    },
    "name": "ts_toggle_target_enabled"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
enabledYes
target_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic action ('toggle') without disclosing side effects, required permissions, or state constraints. There is no mention of safety or reversibility.

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?

The description is very concise (two lines) with no unnecessary words. However, it lacks structure such as sections or examples, but remains efficient.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description should provide more comprehensive context. It does not explain return values, error handling, or prerequisites for toggling a target.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It restates the parameter names and types but adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema (e.g., 'target_id: The unique ID of the target'). Does not explain expected values or constraints.

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 verb 'Toggle' and the resource 'enabled/active state of a specific target'. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like ts_set_project_enabled which operate on different objects.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any prerequisites. The description is purely operational, lacking context on usage scenarios or exclusions.

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