GMA2 MCP

list_variables

List show or user variables from a grandMA2 console. Apply an optional filter to narrow results by pattern (e.g., 'f*').

Instructions

list show variables or user variables on the grandMA2 console.

Args:
    variable_type: "show" for show variables (ListVar), "user" for user variables (ListUserVar)
    filter: optional filter pattern (e.g. "f*" to list variables starting with f)

Returns:
    str: raw console response with variable listing

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": {
      "variable_type": "<variable_type>"
    },
    "name": "list_variables"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`variable_type`	Yes
`filter`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the return type (str, raw console response) but does not disclose safety (read-only), error handling, or performance characteristics. Minimal behavioral insight beyond the obvious listing operation.

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?

The description is extremely concise with two clear paragraphs: one for parameters and one for return value. No redundant information, front-loaded with the purpose.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, output schema exists), the description is largely complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return type. Minor gap: no mention of potential errors or limitations, but acceptable for a list operation.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains variable_type with valid values ('show', 'user') and filter with an example pattern, adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 lists show or user variables on the grandMA2 console, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_variable and set_variable which perform different operations.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description explains how to use the tool with the variable_type parameter and optional filter, but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Usage is implied but not contrasted with other listing tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server