Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CASDA MCP Server

CASDA MCP Server

by jbwod
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Get CASDA data job results

casda_get_data_job_results
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve result metadata for a data job identified by request ID, listing safe metadata without exposing raw download links.

Instructions

List safe result metadata for a data job without opaque download URLs.

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": {
      "request_id": "<request_id>"
    },
    "name": "casda_get_data_job_results"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
request_idYesData job identifier returned by this server.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNo
statusYes
resultsNo
provenanceNo
request_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety is clear. The description adds that the results are 'safe result metadata' (non-sensitive, read-only) and explicitly says no download URLs, which enhances transparency beyond annotations.

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?

One concise sentence with front-loaded verb and resource. Every word adds value, no redundancy.

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 simple single-parameter schema, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool returns and what it excludes.

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 fully described. The description adds no parameter information, so the baseline of 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?

Description clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'safe result metadata for a data job', and explicitly notes what it does not include ('without opaque download URLs'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like casda_download_job_results.

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 implies usage for obtaining metadata without download URLs, and by contrasting with download URLs, it hints at when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusivity conditions.

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