Gantry

by fourn9

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

studio_inbox

Read-only

List and filter inbox items to track pending changes, evidence, and reviews in Gantry robotics development workflows.

Instructions

studio inbox

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": {
      "arguments": "<arguments>"
    },
    "name": "studio_inbox"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`arguments`	Yes
`idempotency_key`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.4.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

D1.3/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of pagination, filtering behavior, or what an inbox query returns. Two words carry no behavioral context.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

It is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness: two words that convey no actionable information to the agent. Brevity here is a defect, not a virtue.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a tool with a nested argument object, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a closely related sibling, the definition is completely inadequate. An agent cannot confidently select or invoke this tool from the description alone.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the nested arguments object contains opaque parameters (after, basis, limit, intent) with no descriptions. The description does not compensate at all, leaving the meaning of 'basis' and 'intent' entirely undocumented.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description is 'studio inbox', which merely restates the tool name with no verb and no statement of what operation is performed. It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling bot_inbox, which is the most obvious alternative an agent would need to choose between.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

There is no guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool, when not to, or how it relates to bot_inbox or any of the other inbox-adjacent siblings. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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