ucontrol-mcp

Ucontrol Read Protocols

ucontrol_read_protocols

Read-onlyIdempotent

List the uControl protocol inventory, split into read-only and write access. Write protocols appear only when UCONTROL_TOOL_MODE is read-write.

Instructions

List this MCP server's uControl protocol inventory, split by read-only and write access. Write protocols are only registered when UCONTROL_TOOL_MODE=read-write.

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": "ucontrol_read_protocols"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: the output splits read-only and write protocols, and write protocol registration is conditional on an environment variable. This provides valuable runtime context not present in structured fields.

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, no filler. The first sentence states the action and output split; the second adds a critical conditional detail. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded.

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 parameterless read-only listing tool, the description is complete. It explains what the tool lists, how the output is organized, and under what conditions write protocols appear. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently conveys the return structure.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the parameter baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially, since there are none). The description adds no parameter-specific info, but nothing is missing.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and names the resource ('uControl protocol inventory'), and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that read schemas or assets. It also specifies the split by read-only and write access, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description gives clear context: it lists the protocol inventory and notes that write protocols appear only when UCONTROL_TOOL_MODE=read-write, which helps the agent understand when to expect those. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state 'use this when...' though none of the siblings compete for the same purpose.

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