Skip to main content
Glama
astandrik

Local YDB MCP

by astandrik
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

local_ydb_nodes_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check dynamic node registration status in YDB clusters. Use after starting, adding, or removing nodes to confirm they appear in the viewer nodelist.

Instructions

Read-only check of dynamic node registration through viewer/json nodelist. Use after starting, adding, or removing dynamic nodes; use local_ydb_tenant_check first when tenant reachability is unknown.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
profileNoNamed profile from local-ydb.config.json. Defaults to config.defaultProfile.
configPathNoAbsolute path to an explicit local-ydb config file. Missing, unreadable, oversized, or invalid explicit files fail closed instead of using defaults.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.21
    • changedInput schema / properties / configPath / description
      Previous value: -"Explicit local-ydb config file path to load for this tool call. Useful when the MCP server should pick up a different config without restart."New value: +"Absolute path to an explicit local-ydb config file. Missing, unreadable, oversized, or invalid explicit files fail closed instead of using defaults."
    • addedInput schema / properties / configPath / minLength
      Added value: +1
  2. Addedv0.1.13
  3. Removedv0.1.12
  4. Addedv0.1.5
  5. Removedv0.1.4
  6. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the underlying mechanism (viewer/json nodelist) and tying the check to dynamic-node registration state, going beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 filler: the first front-loads the core read-only purpose and mechanism, and the second adds the relevant trigger events plus alternative routing. Every phrase earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a zero-required-parameter read-only check with strong annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, mechanism, timing, and alternative routing. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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%, and both parameters already have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, which matches the baseline for fully documented parameters.

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 states a specific verb (check) and a precise resource (dynamic node registration) reached through viewer/json nodelist, making the tool's scope unmistakable. It also clearly distinguishes this from broader YDB status tools by focusing on dynamic node registration after lifecycle events.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: after starting, adding, or removing dynamic nodes. It also names the alternative tool, local_ydb_tenant_check, and states the condition for using it instead, which fully routes an agent's decision.

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