nds-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

nds_list_raw_archives

List metadata for embedded ENDF-6 zip archives from FENDL/IRDFF libraries, with substring filter on relative path and optional projectile selector. Never returns BLOB payloads.

Instructions

List embedded upstream ENDF-6 zip archive metadata for FENDL/IRDFF (never returns BLOB payloads).

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": {
      "library": "<library>",
      "limit": "<limit>",
      "offset": "<offset>"
    },
    "name": "nds_list_raw_archives"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Substring match on rel_path (case-sensitive).
`limit`	Yes	Required. Hard-capped server-side (default cap: 5000).
`offset`	Yes
`library`	Yes	Raw archive library to browse: fendl32c\|irdff2
`projectile`	No	Projectile selector (fendl32c only; ignored if absent).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description is the primary source for behavioral details. It does disclose a key behavior—never returns BLOB payloads—but omits other details like pagination behavior, error semantics, or permissions. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

One tight sentence that leads with the action and resource, and parenthetically adds a critical behavioral caveat. No filler.

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 list tool, the description states the core purpose and key limitation, and the schema covers parameters. However, without an output schema, it does not convey the structure of the returned metadata, leaving some ambiguity about the response format.

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 descriptions cover 4 of 5 parameters well (q, limit, library, projectile), giving the agent necessary semantics. The description itself adds no extra parameter information, but with high coverage it does not need to.

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 identifies the action (list), the resource (embedded upstream ENDF-6 zip archive metadata), and the library scope (FENDL/IRDFF), distinguishing it from sibling list tools.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool—browsing raw archive metadata—but does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it. The note about never returning BLOB payloads implies a distinction from payload-returning tools, but no sibling is named.

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