vcf-ops-mpb-mcp

Run a collection preview

mpb_collection_preview

Read-only

Runs a full collection preview of a design's objects, metrics, properties, and relationships, returning the job ID required by mpb_verify_design.

Instructions

Runs a full collection preview of the design (objects, metrics, properties, relationships) and returns the job id needed by mpb_verify_design.

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": {
      "designId": "<designId>"
    },
    "name": "mpb_collection_preview"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`wait`	No	Wait for the preview to finish (default true)
`designId`	Yes	MPB design UUID (see mpb_list_designs)
`logLevel`	No	Default INFO

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 15, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the call produces a job id consumed by mpb_verify_design, but says nothing about whether the preview runs asynchronously, how long it takes, or what happens when wait=false.

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 action, the scope, and the return value with no filler. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly discloses the key return value (the job id) and its consumer. For a three-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the only remaining gap is async/timing behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, with designId, wait and logLevel all documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema for any of the three parameters.

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 and resource ('Runs a full collection preview of the design') and enumerates the scope it covers (objects, metrics, properties, relationships), which lets an agent distinguish it from read-only getters like mpb_get_design or mpb_get_design_status.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description ties the tool to a downstream step by noting the returned job id is 'needed by mpb_verify_design', which gives clear sequencing context. It stops short of stating when not to use it or how it relates to other preview/status siblings.

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