nds-mcp

by fkguo

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

nds_list_constants

List CODATA fundamental constants with keyword filtering and pagination for targeted access to physical constant data.

Instructions

List CODATA fundamental constants with optional keyword filtering and pagination.

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": {
      "exact_only": "<exact_only>",
      "limit": "<limit>",
      "offset": "<offset>"
    },
    "name": "nds_list_constants"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	Yes	Maximum results
`query`	No	Keyword filter on constant names
`offset`	Yes	Pagination offset
`exact_only`	Yes	When true, return only constants with exact CODATA uncertainty

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'List' implies a read-only operation and filtering/pagination are mentioned, but the exact_only parameter is not surfaced in the description, and no return behavior is described.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every phrase adds relevant information, with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a low-complexity listing tool with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but minimal. It omits the exact_only behavior and does not mention what shape the returned list takes, which would be useful in the absence of an output schema.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a high-level framing of 'keyword filtering and pagination' but provides no detail beyond the schema, so it earns the baseline score.

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 a specific resource ('CODATA fundamental constants'), and clearly conveys the tool's scope. It distinguishes this from siblings like nds_get_constant by emphasizing plural listing behavior with optional filtering and pagination.

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?

It states the tool lists constants and supports optional keyword filtering and pagination, giving some context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like nds_get_constant or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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