CVAT MCP

cvat_api_request

Call any CVAT REST API endpoint under /api/. For mutating methods (POST, PATCH, PUT, DELETE), confirm mutation is required.

Instructions

Call any official CVAT REST endpoint under /api/. For POST, PATCH, PUT, or DELETE, confirmMutation must be true.

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": {
      "method": "<method>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "cvat_api_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`method`	Yes
`path`	Yes	CVAT API path, for example /api/tasks or /api/jobs/12/annotations/.
`query`	No
`body`	No
`outputPath`	No	Workspace-relative path for binary downloads.
`confirmMutation`	No	Required as true for non-GET methods.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 14, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only mentions the confirmMutation requirement but does not disclose side effects (e.g., mutation, deletion), authentication needs, or rate limits. Behavioral traits are minimally conveyed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short (two sentences) and front-loaded, but it is under-specified. It efficiently conveys the core purpose but omits necessary usage details, making it not earn its place fully.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (generic API caller with 6 parameters, no output schema) and the existence of many sibling tools for specific operations, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain how to use parameters like query, body, or outputPath, nor does it cover return values or when to prefer this tool over siblings.

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?

The description adds semantics for confirmMutation by noting it must be true for non-GET methods. However, schema description coverage is 50%, and the description does not elaborate on query, body, or outputPath, relying on the schema's partial descriptions.

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 calls any official CVAT REST endpoint under /api/, which distinguishes it from the specific sibling tools like cvat_create_project and cvat_get_task. The verb 'call' and resource 'CVAT REST endpoint' are specific.

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?

The description provides a condition for mutation methods (confirmMutation must be true) but offers no guidance on when to use this generic tool versus the specific sibling tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server