Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Gantry

Gantry

by fourn9
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

studio_overview

Read-only

Get an overview of Gantry's versioned robotics development state—artifacts, changes, evidence, reviews, and execution context—to assess current project status.

Instructions

studio overview

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_overview"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
argumentsYes
idempotency_keyNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.4.0

TDQS

D1.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 structurally. The description adds nothing on top of that: no mention of pagination (despite an 'after' cursor), rate limits, data freshness, or what the overview actually encompasses. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes zero 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?

Two words are technically terse but represent under-specification rather than conciseness. Nothing is front-loaded because there is no content to front-load.

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?

There is no output schema and the parameters include nested opaque objects, so the description carries full explanatory burden and delivers nothing. For a tool with a cursor, a limit, and two structured arguments, this is completely inadequate.

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 four undocumented properties (after, basis, limit, intent), the last two being untyped objects whose meaning is entirely opaque. The description compensates for none of this, so an agent cannot infer what 'basis' or 'intent' should contain.

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?

"studio overview" only restates the tool name with no verb and no resource explanation beyond the word 'overview'. It gives no way to distinguish this from siblings such as product_overview, studio_work, or studio_team, all of which appear to be overview-scoped tools.

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 exclusions, and no mention of the many overlapping sibling tools. An agent has no basis for choosing this over product_overview or context other than guessing from the name.

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