Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mesa-clm

mesa-clm

by idss-mesa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

ds_get_rule_definition

Fetch the best-effort source definition of a named iRODS rule to inspect server-side logic, returning the rule source when available.

Instructions

Return the source of a named iRODS rule. iRODS does not expose rule sources through PRC; this is a best-effort tool whose definition field is None on most servers.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "ds_get_rule_definition"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesName of the rule to introspect.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the critical failure mode: the tool is best-effort and usually returns None for 'definition'. It does not state read-only status, authentication requirements, or behavior when the rule name is not found, but the key behavioral limitation is clearly surfaced.

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?

Two tight sentences: the purpose is front-loaded and the important limitation follows immediately. Every clause earns its place with no redundant or vague wording.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter, annotation-free, output-schema-free tool, the description covers purpose, return field, and the dominant failure mode. It still omits error behavior (e.g., nonexistent rule) and read-only/authorization context, but the essential calling information is present.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single 'name' parameter is already documented in the schema. The description only restates that it accepts a named iRODS rule and does not add syntax, format, or lookup semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: 'Return the source of a named iRODS rule.' This clearly distinguishes it from ds_list_rules (which lists rules) and ds_execute_rule (which runs them), but it does not explicitly name or route against those siblings.

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?

The description gives a strong contextual caveat: iRODS does not expose rule sources through PRC, so this is best-effort and the 'definition' field is None on most servers. That warns the agent not to rely on it, but it offers no explicit when-to-use or alternative-tool guidance.

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