Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CASDA MCP Server

CASDA MCP Server

by jbwod
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Get CASDA observation

casda_get_observation
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve observation details, projects, and bounded products from the CASDA archive using an ASKAP scheduling block ID or observation ID.

Instructions

Retrieve an observation, projects, and bounded products for an ASKAP SBID or obs_id.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "casda_get_observation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
observation_idNoExact ObsCore obs_id when not using the ASKAP SBID convenience.
scheduling_block_idNoPositive ASKAP scheduling block identifier.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNo
productsNo
projectsNo
provenanceNo
observationNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent. The description adds that it retrieves 'projects and bounded products', which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not detail error conditions or behavior when both IDs are provided.

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?

Single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the verb. 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?

For a simple tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the scope of what is returned. It covers the key aspect of retrieving multiple related entities.

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%, and the description merely mentions the identifiers already documented in the schema. It adds no new semantic information about 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and the resources 'observation, projects, and bounded products' for a specific identifier (ASKAP SBID or obs_id). It distinguishes from sibling tools by indicating it retrieves a bundle of related data.

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 use when needing observation with its projects and products, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives like casda_get_project or casda_search_products.

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