Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mesa-clm

mesa-clm

by idss-mesa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

mesa_datacite_validate

Validate DataCite AVUs against the 4.x kernel to identify missing mandatory fields, invalid controlled-vocabulary values, and DOI readiness.

Instructions

Validate DataCite AVUs against the 4.x kernel: report missing mandatory fields, invalid controlled-vocabulary values, and whether the record is DOI-ready.

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": {
      "avus": "<avus>"
    },
    "name": "mesa_datacite_validate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
avusYesThe candidate DataCite AVUs to validate.

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 it does disclose the outcome behavior (reports missing mandatory fields, invalid vocabulary, DOI-readiness) and the 4.x kernel scope. It does not explicitly state it is read-only/non-mutating or mention any auth requirements, which is the only gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the operation first and then the report contents; no filler or restatement of the name.

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 single-parameter validation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is checked and the reporting outcome. It stops short of clarifying error/failure behavior or the exact shape of the returned report, but is sufficient to invoke correctly.

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?

One parameter at 100% schema coverage including an inline description ('The candidate DataCite AVUs to validate'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the DataCite 4.x kernel context, not syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (validate) and resource (DataCite AVUs against the 4.x kernel), and enumerates exactly what it reports: missing mandatory fields, invalid controlled-vocabulary values, and DOI-readiness. An agent can immediately tell this apart from the apply/export/template siblings.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. It is only implied that validation precedes something like mesa_avu_apply_datacite, and no alternatives are named or excluded.

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