Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CASDA MCP Server

CASDA MCP Server

by jbwod
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Get CASDA project

casda_get_project
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a project row from the CASDA database by providing its OPAL code.

Instructions

Retrieve one project row from casda.project by OPAL code.

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": {
      "project_code": "<project_code>"
    },
    "name": "casda_get_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_codeYesExact OPAL/CASDA project code, such as AS102.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNo
projectNo
provenanceNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already indicate no side effects. Description adds that it retrieves exactly one row, but no additional behavioral context (e.g., permissions, null handling).

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, no extraneous words, conveys essential information efficiently.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Simple retrieval tool with output schema. Description adequately explains purpose and input. Could mention that it returns exactly one row, but overall complete for its complexity.

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% and parameter description already provides example ('AS102'). Description mentions 'OPAL code' which adds slight context, but baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Retrieve'), resource ('one project row from casda.project'), and method ('by OPAL code'). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'casda_search_projects' which is for searching multiple projects.

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?

Usage is implied: use when you have an exact OPAL code and need one specific project. However, no explicit guidance on when not to use (e.g., when you need multiple projects) or alternatives (like casda_search_projects).

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