Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Gantry

Gantry

by fourn9
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

studio_work

Read-only

Manage versioned robotics development work by work ID, capturing intent, basis, and state to track activity and keep studio execution context consistent.

Instructions

studio work

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_work"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
argumentsYes
idempotency_keyNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.4.0

TDQS

D1.1/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no behavioral context whatsoever — it does not explain what is retrieved, what work_id identifies, or what activity_only does. With annotations providing only the read/write bit, the near-empty description leaves the mutation-adjacent semantics opaque.

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 information. No structure or front-loading exists 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?

The tool takes a nested arguments object with five properties, one required work_id, and an idempotency_key, with no output schema and no field documentation. A complete definition would need to explain the resource, the meaning of each field, and the read semantics; none of that is present.

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%, so the schema names fields (work_id, state_id, basis, intent, activity_only) without explaining any of them. The description compensates in no way, leaving nested objects basis and intent entirely undefined.

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

Purpose1/5

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

"studio work" merely restates the tool name and states no verb, resource, or effect. An agent cannot tell what operation is performed or how it differs from siblings like get_development_state or review_context.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives among the many similarly-named sibling tools. The description gives the agent nothing to route on.

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