Skip to main content
Glama
astandrik

Local YDB MCP

by astandrik
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

local_ydb_status_report

Read-onlyIdempotent

Run a read-only aggregate status report to quickly diagnose local YDB deployments. It combines inventory, auth, tenant, nodes, and health checks; each component is isolated and falls back safely if it fails.

Instructions

Read-only aggregate report for quick diagnosis. Runs local_ydb_inventory, local_ydb_auth_check, local_ydb_tenant_check, local_ydb_nodes_check, and local_ydb_healthcheck, returning each result; every component is isolated so an unexpected failure produces a safe component-shaped fallback and does not stop the remaining checks.

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
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it runs five sub-checks, returns each result, isolates component failures, and produces a safe component-shaped fallback so one failure does not halt the rest. This is exactly the kind of context annotations alone cannot 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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds value (component list, return behavior, isolation/fallback). No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 read-only aggregate report with no required parameters, safe annotations, and a fully covered schema, the description covers invocation behavior, component list, and failure semantics. It is complete enough for an agent to select and call 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 profile and configPath are already well documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Opens with 'Read-only aggregate report for quick diagnosis' and explicitly lists the five component tools it runs, making the verb, resource, and scope unambiguous. This distinguishes it from the individual sibling check tools and from mutation/report siblings.

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?

'For quick diagnosis' gives a clear context for when to use the aggregate report, and enumerating the component commands implies it replaces running them individually. It does not explicitly say 'use this instead of local_ydb_inventory/... for an overview,' but the context is clear enough.

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