Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenCDR MCP

OpenCDR MCP

Official
by dbnz-io
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

opencdr_routing_activation

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves retained owner routing activation, expiry, and feed connection status; uses Fleet authority in fleet mode and standalone Core in Core mode, requiring an approval ID.

Instructions

Read retained owner routing activation, expiry and feed connection status.

In fleet mode this tool uses the Fleet authority directly; Core mode uses standalone Core.

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": {
      "approval_id": "<approval_id>"
    },
    "name": "opencdr_routing_activation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
approval_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.3.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, open-world read, so the description does not need to restate safety. It does add genuinely useful context beyond annotations by explaining that the tool resolves authority differently in Fleet mode versus standalone Core mode, which affects where the data comes from. However, it omits authorization prerequisites for the approval_id and gives no indication of failure behavior when the approval is absent or expired.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short sentences with no filler, and the purpose statement is front-loaded ahead of the mode caveat. Slight density of unexplained domain terms keeps it from being maximally clear, but nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description adequately signals the returned fields (activation, expiry, feed connection status), which matters since no output schema exists, and it covers the Fleet/Core authority split. But for a tool whose only parameter is a required, opaque approval_id, leaving that identifier entirely unexplained is a meaningful completeness gap.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The single required parameter, approval_id, has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, but it says nothing about what an approval ID is, where it comes from, or whether it must reference a prior approval step.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description leads with a specific verb ('Read') and enumerates the resources returned: routing activation, expiry, and feed connection status. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling case/rule/detection tools, though the phrase 'retained owner routing activation' is domain jargon that an uninitiated agent may not fully parse.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no contrast with any alternative tool. The Fleet versus Core sentence describes deployment-mode routing, not a condition for choosing this tool over another, so the agent is left to infer call conditions entirely.

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