Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
InterSystems IRIS MCP Server

InterSystems IRIS MCP Server

by caretdev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

interoperability_production_status

Retrieve the operational status of an Interoperability Production. Optionally specify a production name and request full status for detailed monitoring.

Instructions

Status of an Interoperability Production

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": "interoperability_production_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
full_statusNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "result": {
+      "title": "Result",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "result"
+  ],
+  "title": "interoperability_production_statusOutput",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

D1.9/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations provided; description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The single phrase provides no behavioral details.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely concise but at the cost of clarity. The description is too short to be useful, missing essential information that a concise description should include.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description provides no context about the output format or how the parameters affect it. It is incomplete given the tool's complexity and sibling context.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention parameters at all. It fails to explain what 'name' or 'full_status' control.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description 'Status of an Interoperability Production' is a noun phrase without an action verb, but it identifies the resource being accessed. It is vague and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'interoperability_production_logs' or 'interoperability_production_queues'.

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. No context about prerequisites or when to call it.

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