Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CASDA MCP Server

CASDA MCP Server

by jbwod
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Get CASDA collection

casda_get_collection
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve aggregated statistics (counts, types, release span) for ObsCore products in a specified collection.

Instructions

Aggregate ObsCore products for one collection (counts, types, release span).

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": {
      "collection": "<collection>"
    },
    "name": "casda_get_collection"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
collectionYesExact ObsCore obs_collection / project short name.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNo
collectionNo
provenanceNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by naming outputs (counts, types, release span), which is not in annotations. However, it does not disclose potential pagination or performance aspects.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, clearly conveying the core purpose and key outputs.

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 a single parameter (with full schema coverage) and an output schema available, the description adequately covers the purpose and scope. Complexity is low, and the description is complete.

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% with one parameter described as 'Exact ObsCore obs_collection / project short name.' The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'aggregate' and the resource 'ObsCore products for one collection', specifying it provides counts, types, and release span. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like casda_get_product (single product) or search tools.

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 implies usage for aggregating products by collection but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like casda_search_products or casda_get_observation. No exclusions or prerequisites 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

Other Tools