Skip to main content
Glama
informatics-isi-edu

Deriva MCP Server

Official

validate_rids

Validate dataset, asset, workflow, and execution RIDs before running experiments to catch missing references and version mismatches early.

Instructions

Validate that RIDs exist in the catalog before running experiments.

Performs batch validation of RIDs to catch configuration errors early with clear error messages. Use this before running experiments to ensure all referenced datasets, assets, and other entities actually exist.

Args: dataset_rids: List of dataset RIDs to validate. asset_rids: List of asset RIDs to validate (model weights, etc.). dataset_versions: Dictionary mapping dataset RID to required version string (e.g., {"1-ABC": "0.4.0"}). Validates version exists. workflow_rids: List of workflow RIDs to validate. execution_rids: List of execution RIDs to validate. warn_missing_descriptions: If True (default), include warnings for datasets missing descriptions.

Returns: JSON with: - is_valid: True if all validations passed - errors: List of error messages - warnings: List of warning messages - validated_rids: Dictionary of validated RID info

Example: validate_rids( dataset_rids=["1-ABC", "2-DEF"], dataset_versions={"1-ABC": "0.4.0"}, asset_rids=["3-GHI"] ) -> { "is_valid": true, "errors": [], "warnings": [], "validated_rids": {...} }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asset_ridsNo
dataset_ridsNo
workflow_ridsNo
execution_ridsNo
dataset_versionsNo
warn_missing_descriptionsNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses batch validation behavior, clear error messages, warning generation via warn_missing_descriptions, and the return structure (is_valid, errors, warnings, validated_rids). It doesn't explicitly state whether the tool modifies state, but 'validate' implies a read-only check, and the return focus on validation results supports that.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections for purpose, arguments, returns, and an example. While moderately long, every sentence adds value—no fluff. The example directly illustrates usage, and the Args section mirrors the schema parameters, making it easy to parse.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool has 6 parameters and a rich return structure, the description is complete: it explains each parameter, the return JSON structure, and provides a concrete example. The presence of an output schema (not shown) reduces the need to detail return values, but the description does so anyway, enhancing completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates fully. It documents all 6 parameters with types and formats, including dataset_versions as a dictionary mapping RIDs to version strings, and provides an example invocation. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Validate that RIDs exist in the catalog before running experiments.' It specifies the action (validate), the resource (RIDs in catalog), and the context (before experiments). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which perform different catalog operations.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this before running experiments to ensure all referenced datasets, assets, and other entities actually exist.' This tells when to use the tool, though it doesn't mention alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it. Given no sibling tool offers similar validation, this is sufficient.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/informatics-isi-edu/deriva-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server